Conscientiousness & Job Stress Impact Career Success

i
CONSCIENTIOUS PERSONALITY TRAIT AND WORK STRESS AS
FACTORS IN CAREER SUCCESS AMONG WORKERS
OYIBOKJA JENNIFER EMILOMO
MATRIC NO.: 129085029
A RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY,
FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS, AKOKA, YABA,
LAGOS.
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT FOR THE AWARD OF MASTERS IN MANAGERIAL
PSYCHOLOGY (MMP)
JANUARY, 2015

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tittle page i
Table of contents i
Certification page iv
Dedication v
Acknowledgement vi
Abstract vii
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction 1
Background of the Study 1
Statement of the Problem 10
Objectives of the Study 11
Significance of the Study 11
Operational Definition of Variables 12
Literature Review 12
Research Questions 35
Hypotheses 35
CHAPTER TWO
Method 36
Research Setting 36
Research Design 36
Research Instruments 37
Procedure 38
Data Analysis 39
CHAPTER THREE
Result 40
CHAPTER FOUR
Discussion 44

iii
CHAPTER FIVE
Summary 49
Conclusion 50
Implication of the Study 50
Recommendations 51
References 53
Appendixes 65

iv
CERTIFICATION
I certify that this research was carried out by OYIBOKJA JENNIFER EMILOMO and
presented to the Department of Psychology University of Lagos.
OYIBOKJA JENNIFER EMILOMO DATE
Researcher
DR. AKINSOLA DATE
Supervisor
PROF. I. S. AGIOBU-KEMMER DATE
H.O.D. Department of Psychology

v
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to God Almighty for His faithfulness

vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, I must insist: I have not done this work alone. Many people have helped to see this
research project to completion, I have been privileged to enjoy support from friends, colleagues
and family. Their encouragement went a long way in seeing to the successful completion of this
programme. I would therefore like to say a big thank you for their moral support.
I also want to acknowledge Dr (Mrs) Akinsola of the Department of Psychology, University of
Lagos for persevering with me as my supervisor throughout the time it took me to complete this
research and write this project. I am grateful
Above all, I want to thank God for sustaining me all through the time spent in achieving this
great feat.

vii
Abstract
The study examined the role of conscientious personality, job stress and gender in the prediction
of career success among workers. The aims of the this research were to find out if
conscientiousness has a positive significant relationship with career success among workers; if
job stress will have negative significant relationship with career success among workers, and to
find out if male workers will report more career success than female workers. A total of two
hundred and six (206) workers comprising of 115 male workers and 91 female workers whose
age ranged from 20-57 and with a mean age of 32.51 years participated in the study. The
research was a survey design. It made use of purposive sampling technique to select its
participants. The research made use of three standardized instruments to gather its data. They
include: The big five inventory (BFI) developed by John, & Srivastava, (1999); Job Tension
Scale (JTS) developed by Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, and Rosenthal (1964); and the Career
Success Scale (CSS) developed by Dries, Pepermans, & Carlier, (2008). Pearson product
moment correlation analysis, the linear regression analysis and the independent sample t-test
were used to analyse the data. The results revealed that there was a significant positive
relationship between conscientiousness and career success; also, job stress had a negative
significant relationship with career success; finally, male workers reported more career success
than female workers. Reasons for these findings were discussed and it was recommended that
organisations should consider the issue of conscientiousness while recruiting its staff; also,
managers should adopt work policies that will give both male and female workers equal
opportunities of career advancement.

1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Career development is a field that is becoming increasingly relevant for both employees and
employers. Economic and technological developments have resulted in working careers
becoming more unpredictable due to changing work opportunities and shifts in labor. A
permanent job with one employer, preferably for the entire span of a person's working life, can
no longer be considered the normal work pattern. At present, career opportunities tend to be seen
in the light of employability (e.g., van Dam, 2004), recognizing that career development
frequently goes beyond the boundaries of one organization (so-called boundary less careers;
Arthur, 1994). The notion of a traditional career, chiefly determined by an employee's
preliminary training and by opportunities provided by employers, has shifted to the concept of a
changing career, largely guided by the employee him- or herself. This change toward employee
self-management in career development fuels interest in the personal dispositions that could
explain why this type of self-management goes well for some people, but not for others. In this
context, we find increasing use of the general term employee competencies. Often lacking,
however, is a more specific understanding of which competencies are actually relevant for career
development. The need for further research on this matter is underlined by the fact that career
competencies are now being mentioned more frequently in national policy documents on
employability, as well as in the context of policies and programs in educational and labor
organizations. According to Boudreaux (2001) and Savickas (2003), studies with practical
relevance that go beyond the traditional focus of career development are needed. Thus, this study
focuses on career competencies and career success.

2
While traditionally a career was confined to advancing in organizational hierarchies the focus
nowadays lays on objective and subjective aspects. Moreover, within boundaryless careers
individuals not only strive for climbing up the ladder but rather for a life career including
satisfaction within their professional and private sphere. Despite the fact that the literature on
careers has not found a common ground to define and operationalize career success (Abele-
Brehm and Stief, 2004; Dette, Abele and Renner, 2004), the objective/subjective dichotomy is
widely accepted in the career literature (Abele-Brehm and Stief, 2004; Abele and Spurk, 2009b).
While objective career measures are neutral and measurement does not highly differ across the
literature, subjective success can be assessed in various ways. Thus the present discussion paper
will present various valid measures of both.
Although the literature on careers has not found consensus to define and operationalize career
success (e.g., Abele-Brehm and Stief, 2004; Dette, Abele and Renner, 2004) the
subjective/objective dichotomy has reflected common definitions of career success. Moreover, it
is widely accepted that career success comprises objective and subjective elements (e.g., Abele-
Brehm and Stief, 2004; Abele and Spurk, 2009b). Thus, the following chapter presents various
approaches in measuring objective and subjective career success.
Career success is ‘the positive psychological or work-related outcomes or achievements one
accumulates as a result of work experiences’ (Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer, 1999). It is both
objective success such as pay or hierarchical position and it also comprises the beholder’s
subjective success, which is an individual’s evaluation of his/her career (Abele & Wiese, 2008;
Arnold & Cohen, 2008; Dette et al., 2004; Dries, Pepermans, & Carlier, 2008; Heslin, 2003).
Recent meta-analyses revealed correlations between objective and subjective success not higher
than .30 (Dette et al., 2004; Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005).

3
Dependent on the comparison standard, i.e. self-versus others, subjective success can be
conceptualized as self-referent subjective success or as other-referent subjective success (Abele
& Wiese, 2008; Dette et al., 2004; Heslin, 2003). In self-referent subjective success assessment,
an individual compares his/her career relative to personal standards and aspirations. Self-referent
subjective career success is usually measured as career satisfaction or job satisfaction (e.g.
Boudreau, Boswell, & Judge, 2001; and Judge, Cable, Boudreau, & Bretz, 1995). In other-
referent assessment, an individual compares his/her career relative to an external standard, for
instance a reference group or a reference person. Heslin (2003) found that more than two-thirds
of his respondents used other-referent criteria in determining their subjective success.
Several possibilities concerning the directions of influence between objective and subjective
career success are conceivable. Objective success could be the basis for the subjective evaluation
of success. Many authors state this direction of influence (e.g. Judge et al., 1995; Ng et al.,
2005); some even assume that the subjective perception of success is a by-product of objective
success (Nicholson & De Waal-Andrews, 2005). Supporting the ‘objective influences subjective’
reasoning it has been found that income and promotions predict job and career attitudes (Gattiker
& Larwood, 1989; Locke, 1976); that income, status, and promotions predict career satisfaction (
Judge et al., 1995; Martins, Eddleston, & Veiga, 2002; Richardsen, Mikkelsen, & Burke, 1997;
Wayne, Liden, Kraimer, & Graf, 1999); and that income predicts changes in career satisfaction
in time intervals of 12 months (Raabe, Frese, & Beehr, 2007) and 6 years (Schneer & Reitman,
1997). Turban and Dougherty (1994) found that income and promotions are associated with
perceived career success which included other-referent comparison judgments. Similarly,
Kirchmeyer (1998) reported positive correlations of income and status with other referent
subjective success. Findings concerning the influence of objective success on job satisfaction are

4
equivocal. Judge et al. (1995) and Richardsen et al. (1997) found no influence, whereas Judge,
Thoresen, Pucik, and Welbourne (1999) reported positive influences (similarly Cable & DeRue,
2002). It has been suggested that the impact of objective success on job satisfaction may be
moderated by age or career stage (Altimus & Tersine, 1973).
The reverse direction of influence that the subjective experience of success leads to more
objective success – is also conceivable (Boehm & Lyubomirsky, 2008; Hall, 2002). Subjective
success could make a person self-confident, it could enhance his/her motivation and goal-
striving, and these motivational effects could lead to more objective success over time. The
empirical basis, however, is very limited. We only found one longitudinal study which is
somewhat related to this issue. Marks and Fleming (1999) showed that subjective well-being
(comprised of an index that among other things included satisfaction with work and money)
predicted income with prior income being controlled for.
A third conceivable theoretical perspective is interdependence (Arthur, Khapova, & Wilderom,
2005; Hall & Chandler, 2005). People experience objective reality, create understandings and
evaluations about what constitutes career success, and then individually act on these
understandings and evaluations. Based on their actions they attain certain outcomes, which lead
to modified understandings and evaluations, respective behaviours follow, and so forth. Such an
interdependence of objective and subjective success can empirically best be demonstrated in a
longitudinal analysis with several waves of data collection, i.e. if career development is
considered.
Furthermore, As Jaskolka, Beyer, & Trice (1985) noted, career success is an evaluative concept,
and so judgments of career success depend on who performs the judging. Career success as
judged by others is determined on the basis of relatively objective and visible criteria (Jaskolka,

5
Beyer, & Trice, 1985). Researchers often refer to this type of career success as objective success,
because it can be measured by observable exoteric metrics such as salary and the number of
promotions (Gattiker & Larwood, 1988; Judge & Bretz, 1994). Thus, we define objective career
success as observable career accomplishments that can be measured against the metrics of pay
and ascendancy (London & Stumpf, 1982).
Career success also can be judged by the individual pursuing the career, and so it is important to
consider both objective and subjective evaluations of career success (Howard & Bray, 1988;
Gattiker & Larwood, 1989). Accordingly, this study includes subjective career success, which is
defined as individuals’ feelings of accomplishment and satisfaction with their careers.
There has been a long distinction in the career success literature about objective and subjective
career success; dating back to the initial theoretical distinction provided by Hughes (1937, 1958).
Based on Hughes’ framework, objective career success has been defined by observable and
measurable criteria, such as pay, promotion, or status. Subjective career success, on the other
hand, has been defined by an individual’s reactions to unfolding career experiences.
In the literature, traditional conceptions of career success were premised on the notion of linear
hierarchical career progression in a competitive environment. In more than two thirds of career
studies published in major journals between 1980 and 1994, career success was measured by
objective measures such as salary, rank or promotion (Arthur and Rousseau, 1996). On the other
hand; a number of studies (Kofodimos, 1993; Sturges, 1999) have found that defining career
success in terms of purely external and objective terms such as pay and position is not congruent
with what many managers and professionals (especially women) feel about their own career
success. Therefore; it is clear that there is a need for more holistic and multidimensional

6
conceptions and definitions of career success, where the interplay between work, family, life,
significant others, and various life stages is acknowledged.
Identifying variables influencing career success has received considerable research attention
from organizational scholars. Comprehensive models of career success have included a number
of individual and organizational variables (Judge and Bretz, 1994 and; Judge, Cable, Boudreau,
& Bretz, 1995). Some of these variables that have been related with career success according to
these scholars include: demographic variables like gender, age, length of service, etc, human
capital and motivational variables.
Despite the variety of approaches in measuring career success and in particular subjective and
objective career success we conclude that there are several arguments from the literature that it
might be advisable to assess both aspects of career success.
As pointed out by Hall (1996) individuals do not necessarily approach their career decisions
rationally. Thus, one’s subjective perception might influence how one’s career has and/or will
proceed. In other words: objective success could have an influence on how individuals
subjectively experience their career success, but subjective experiences of success might also
have an influence on individual objective success (Abele and Spurk, 2009a) as subjective success
could make a person self-confident or it could enhance his or her motivation and goal-striving.
These motivational effects could in turn lead to more objective success over time. Alternatively,
people experience objective success, consequently subjectively develop their individual
understanding about what constitutes career success, then individually act upon, and eventually
leading to certain (more successful) outcomes (Abele and Spurk, 2009a; Arthur, Khapova and
Wilderom, 2005; and Hall and Chandler, 2005). The positive relation between objective success
upon job satisfaction has indeed been confirmed by empirical research (e.g., Cable and DeRue,

7
2002; Judge et al., 1999; Raabe, Frese and Beehr, 2007; Schneer and Reitman, 1997; Turban and
Dougherty, 1994). Despite the scarcity of results of the influence of subjective success on
objective success Marks and Fleming (1999) found that subjective well-being predicted income.
Abele and Spurk (2009a) show that subjective success highly contributes to objective success.
Furthermore the subjective meaning of objective and subjective career success depend on gender
and age. As shown by e.g. Allen and Meyer (1993) and Conway (2004) age is positively related
to job satisfaction. Thus, the individual meaning of career success might also depend on one’s
point in life. While younger adults might still strive for objective career success changes such as
marriage and children might put one’s individual emphasis on subjective aspects of career
success. Flexibility, autonomy, and satisfaction within the professional and private sphere might
gain more importance and the traditional linear career path might be put to the side. The current
research will focus on the influence of conscientious personality, job stress and gender on career
success among workers. These variables will briefly be explained in the next chapters.
Conscientiousness refers to self-control and the active process of planning, organising and
carrying out tasks (Barrick & Mount, 1993). The conscientious person is purposeful, strong-
willed and determined. Conscientiousness is manifested in achievement orientation (hardworking
and persistent), dependability (responsible and careful) and orderliness (planful and organised).
On the negative side, high Conscientiousness may lead to annoying fastidiousness, compulsive
neatness or workaholic behaviour. Low scorers may not necessarily lack moral principles, but
they are less exacting in applying them. To the lay person it is a self-evident fact that personality
factors play an important part in job performance. Yet the psychological literature in this regard
is equivocal. Schmitt, Gooding, Noe and Kirsch (1984) found in a meta-analysis of validation
studies of personality measures an average validity coefficient of r = 0.21. However, Barrick and

8
Mount (1991) concluded that there are grounds for optimism concerning the use of standard
personality tests to predict performance of employees. Having defined conscientiousness above,
and bearing in mind the scarcity of research findings in this area of research, the researcher aims
at finding out if conscientiousness will be related to career success among employees. Therefore
it was hypothesized that the more conscientious a worker is, the more likely he or she will be
successful in his or her career.
There has been much research on occupational stress. The occupational stress terminology is
used interchangeably with work stress and/or job stress but its meaning refers to the same thing
(Larson, 2004). Job stress has long been an important concept in the study of employees’
responses to their work environments. The many challenges in the work environment,
characterized by heightened competition, increased work targets, threats of job loss,
organizational change, lack of time, lack of space, continuous technological development,
conflicting demand from organizational stakeholders (McHugh, 1997), increased use of
participationary management and computerization (Myers (2000), greater uncertainty and others
have resulted in higher work stress. Work stress is a major issue in the occupational safety and
health aspect as well as organizational well-being (Williams & Cooper, 1995) since it risks the
employees’ health and organizational success (Noblet, Rodwell & McWilliams, 2001).
Occupational stress can cause unusual and dysfunctional behavior at work and contribute to poor
physical and mental health (WHO, 2004). Job stress has long been an important concept in the
study of employees’ responses to their work environments. The many challenges in the work
environment, characterized by heightened competition, increased work targets, threats of job
loss, organizational change, lack of time, lack of space, continuous technological development,
conflicting demand from organizational stakeholders (McHugh, 1997), increased use of

9
participatory management and computerization (Murray and Gibbon, 2007). Stressful employees
are more likely to be unhealthy, poorly motivated, less motivated and less safe at work (WHO,
2004). Work related stress also has been related to organizational problems such as absenteeism,
high turnover, poor job performance, accidents and errors, and alcohol and drug abuse (Manshor,
Fontaine, and Chong, 2003) and burnout (Mimura and Griffiths, 2003).
Occupational stress has been variously defined by different researchers. For Selye (1974)
physiological stress as the non-specific response of the body to any demand made upon it. A
non-specific change is one which affects all or most parts of a system without selectively. Also,
Colman (2003) defined stress as psychological and physical strain or tension generated by
physical, emotional, social, economic, or occupational circumstances, events, or experiences that
are difficult to manage or endure. Even though, individuals experience stress in their day-to-day
activities, a high level of stress could make the body produce some chemicals which will in turn
affect an individual’s well-being. High level of stress can therefore hinder a persons’ general
well-being because research has shown that sickness and injury can bring about emotional
difficulties such as depression, while stress and anxiety may manifest themselves in physical
illness (Fishbain, 1997).
Occupational stress is stress involving work. According to the current World Health
Organization's (WHO) definition, occupational or work-related stress "is the response people
may have when presented with work demands and pressures that are not matched to their
knowledge and abilities and which challenge their ability to cope.
Also Work-related stress can be seen as the response people may have when presented with work
demands and pressures that are not matched to their knowledge and abilities and which challenge
their ability to cope. Stress occurs in a wide range of work circumstances but is often made

10
worse when employees feel they have little support from supervisors and colleagues, as well as
little control over work processes. The research will therefore strive to find out if these strain
experienced by workers in their work place will influence their performance in their work and
also probably influence how successful they will be in their respective career/work places.
Gender can simply be seen as a worker’s biological status of being a male or female. The
research tries to find out if a male worker will be more satisfied in his/her given career than a
female worker.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
In Nigeria, the present work force is filled with able bodied men and women who most of the
time has both the physical, psychological and mental ability to excel in any career of choice.
Unfortunately, in Nigeria, the absence of job opportunities in both private and public sectors
have made millions of Nigerian youths unemployed while the few employed ones engage in a
certain career by accident not actually because of the individual’s interest in such works. The
situation has left many Nigerian workers unhappy at their work and has often reduced their
interest in the career and also impeded on their career advancement and success. The researcher
has observed that most organizations within Nigerian setting often harbor workers who have
little or no opportunity of advancement and success on the job. This is partly because the
unavailability of work has made some workers to be employed in places where they have little
expertise at, not even interested in, and as such have low likelihood of having a successful
career. This often leads to loads of mediocre workers who do not contribute sufficiently to the
efficiency and productivity of the organization. Despite the above factors that could reduce a
successful work career, the researcher has also observed that some job and personal factors could
also affect a worker’s career success. This is because Occupational stress can affect a worker’s

11
health when the stressors of the workplace exceed the employee’s ability to have some control
over their situation or to cope in other ways. For example, Workers are overburdened with
workloads that remain high regardless of their efforts: the workload is the stressor; employees
feel anxious and their heart rates may speeds up because they cannot control their workloads.
Also, it has been observed that every organization possesses the human capitals which are the
workers. The workers unfortunately come from different backgrounds and with different
personality traits which could also influence their work performances and career success. After a
due consideration of some career challenges faced by different workers in every organization, the
researcher decided to investigate the roles of conscientious personality, job stress and gender as
predictors of career success among workers.
1.3 Objectives of the Study
Broadly, the main objective of the study is to examine the role of conscientious personality, work
Stress and gender on career success of workers. Other specific objectives include the following:
1. To know if there is a positive relationship between conscientious personality trait and
career success among workers.
2. To find out if there will be a negative relationship between work stress and career success
among workers.
3. Finally, to know whether male workers will report more career success than female
workers.
1.4 Significance of the Study
This research came at a time when most Nigerian youths are having career related problems. As
a result, this research will assist the teaming Nigerian youths in knowing some of the variables

12
that could influence their success in a chosen career. Furthermore, this study is important
because it will help human resource managers understand the variables that can affect a worker’s
success in his/her career. Specifically, it will be highly instrumental in determining if
conscientious personality trait, occupational stress and gender can influence a worker’s career
success. It will also add to the already existing researches on the variables that affect a worker’s
success in a given career.
1.5 Operational Definition of Terms
Conscientious Personality: Conscientiousness simply means a worker’s ability to exhibit self-
control and the active process of planning, organising and carrying out tasks that are related to
the requirements of his or her work. In this research, conscientiousness refers to a participant’s
score on the conscientiousness component of the big five inventory developed by John, O. P., &
Srivastava, S. (1999).
Occupational Stress: This is the extent to which an individual experience tension and pressure
from his work as a result of the demands of his/work. In this research, job stress refers to a
worker’s score on the Job Tension Sale (JTS) developed by Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, and
Rosenthal (1964).
Career Success: This refers to a worker’s objective and subjective evaluation of his or her career
achievement. In this research, career success refers to a worker’s score on Career Success Scale
(CSS) developed by Dries, N, Pepermans, R., & Carlier, O. (2008).
1.6 Literature Review
This review will focus on the theoretical and empirical review of the research work. The
theoretical review will review some theories that explain the concept of career success while the
empirical review will review some empirical researches done on the relationship between

13
conscientious personality traits, occupational stress and gender on career success among
workers.
Theoretical Review
Person-Environment Model
The person-environment perspective of career success is applied to explain the phenomenon of
worker’s career success. The person-environment perspective emphasizes on positive, significant
individual and organizational outcomes due to harmonious interactions between the two
(Schneider, Smith, Taylor, & Fleenor, 2000).
This perspective was first introduced by Parsons (1909). Chatman’s (1989) Behavioural
Interaction Theory and Lewin’s (1939) view that individual’s behavior resulted from individual-
organization interaction were nested in the perspective. In other words, the perspective proposes
that it is not sufficient to explain individual’s work behavior by focusing on either individual’
characteristics or work situation alone. Rather, a comprehensive understanding would be
possible by looking at the interactions between the two parties. The concept of person-
environment fit (PE fit) could be claimed as an all-encompassing concept in the field of
psychology as it has been studied in relation to personality theory, vocational psychology,
personnel selection, social psychology and various aspects of work behaviour as well as
environment.
As the individual-related factors emphasize individual attributes, the person-environment factors
highlight the role of person-job fit perception and needs-supplies fit perception in determining
career success of workers. The person-environment perspective posits that harmonious
interactions between individuals and the environment (e.g. work place) would lead to better work
and career outcomes. Person-job fit perception and needs-supplies fit perception are among the

14
person-environment variables that have been proven to have relationships with career success in
past studies. The results of recent studies by Ballout (2007) and Morley (2007) suggested person-
job fit and needs-supplies fit perceptions as important antecedents of career success. In other
words, individuals with high levels of person-job and needs-supplies fit perceptions are predicted
to have high levels of career success, and vice versa. Pertaining to the very marginal number of
successful workers in Nigeria, there is a concern of worker’s compliance to societal attitudes and
misconception on their inabilities to perform well at workplaces. The compliance to the misfit
perception may lead them to set career goals far from what they could actually achieve.
It is intriguing to look at how the employed workers themselves perceive the compatibility of
their knowledge, skills and abilities to the job and task demands. In summary, the theory argues
that for a worker to achieve success in his or her work, the organization has to match the skills,
knowledge and abilities of the workers to the demands of the jobs in such organizations. The
higher the fit between a worker and the environment, the more success he or she experience,
while the lower the fit between the worker and the environment, the less likelihood it is for the
worker to have a successful career.
Sponsored mobility model
Complementary fit is one of the main dimensions in the person-environment perspective. It
occurs when the individual’s characteristics complements what is yet to be completed in a work
environment to ensure satisfaction and satisfactoriness. Under the umbrella of this dimension lie
two types of fitness, which are the needs-supplies and person-job fitness. The needs-supplies
fitness refers to environmental role in providing financial, physical, psychological,
developmental and other types of sources needed by individuals in their work place. Such fitness
would result in individual’s satisfaction (Kristoff, 1996). Meanwhile, the person-job fitness

15
describes the work environment’s requirement towards individual’s time, energy, commitment,
knowledge, skills and abilities (Wilk & Sackett, 1996). The fitness is achieved when the
individual is able to perform what the job or work environment demands. It has been reported
that harmonious adjustments between an individual and his or her work place lead to positive
outcomes such as job satisfaction, commitment, low turnover intention (Sekiguchi, 2004).
The sponsored-mobility model of career success elaborates on the role of organizational
sponsorship in helping certain individuals to excel in their career. Access to activities and certain
benefits help the individuals to perform better and thus achieve better career outcomes. The
internal labor market theory (Spilerman, 1977) which posits that organization’s investments in
their employees lead to outstanding employees nested in this perspective. The investments could
be in various forms such as training and development opportunities, supervisory support and
multiforms of organizational resources. In developing the theoretical framework for career
success of worker’s, the researcher proposed to look into the conduciveness of physical
workplace environment of workers as a way to explain the career success of the workers.
The sponsored-mobility model of career success emphasizes the role of organizational
sponsorship to ensure individuals career success. Access to activities and certain benefits help
the individuals to perform better and thus achieve better career outcomes. The internal labor
market theory (Spilerman, 1977) which posits that organization’s investments in their employees
lead to outstanding employees is nested in this perspective. The investments could also include
accessible physical work environment and accessibility to the work place. The workers are likely
to be chosen for such investments and achieve better career success if they are regarded as
worthy. The manifestations of good inclusive design actually conveys the message of ‘you are
important’ to the workers.

16
In conclusion, the theory simply argues that if organizations value their worker by sponsoring
them in various ways in the form of training, workshops, and seminars, the workers will feel
high sense of belonginess and worth in the company and therefore will be motivated to achieve
more in the organization in order to be successful in the organization.
Social Cognitive Theory
Social Cognitive Career Theory is derived primarily from the social cognitive theory with the
intention to describe how an individual develops his or her vocational interests, does
occupational choices and achieves career satisfaction and success (Yean, 2008). The father of
Social Cognitive Theory is Albert Bandura. It was Bandura (1986) who in extension of his
theory told that all mature sensible individuals possess a self-system that enables them to
exercise thoughts, feelings and actions. In Social Cognitive Theory the person is fully integrated
with the environment within which he or she is learning. Bandura (1986) says that the
environment, behavior and the person are inseparable from each other. It was Bandura (1986)
who propounded that both outcome and self-efficacy expectations work in tandem to motivate
the individual in achieving his or her long-term goals and thereby successfully perform the life’s
critical tasks. Again it was Bandura (1986) who visualized bidirectional interplay of cognitive,
environment and behavioral factors that result in a “triadic reciprocality” model of interaction.
So the Social Cognitive Career Theory Model connects the Bandura’s General Social Cognitive
theory with the individuals career related choices, plans and explorations. The theory of Social
Cognitive Career was first developed by Robert W. Lent, Steven D. Brown, and Gail Hackett
first in 1994, and then it was expanded upon by the same in the year 2000. The Theory has two
“predictors”. First of these predictors is the self-efficacy and the other is outcome expectations.
Lent, Brown, & Hackett, (1994) state that the word ‘career’ means ‘interests and choice

17
processes’ that are relevant to both the academic and career choices. According to SCCT,
personal inputs include gender, race, and proactive personality whereas contextual factors
include social status, cultural, and organizational support for career development.
An extended version of the Social cognitive career theory (SCCT) proposed by Lent and Brown
(2006) signify the relationship among contextual and individual factors towards career
satisfaction. Career satisfaction takes into account the individuals’ belief that career progress is
in line with their own goals, values and preferences (Seibert & Kraimer, 2001). Here career
satisfaction is related to subjective career success which is the individuals’ judgment of their
career progression, accomplishments and anticipated outcomes (Seibert & Kraimer, 2001).
People with a proactive nature tend to see opportunities and follow them, persevering until they
influence their environment. Proactive personalities tend to have a positive relationship with
career satisfaction and career management behaviors (Seibert & Kramer, 2001). Programs that
aid in the competency development of employees also known as organizational career
management or organizational sponsorship are the processes by which employers enhance their
employees’ career success (Ng et al., 2005). Behaviors that enhance the employability are called
career management behaviors. These help a person in their career goals (Crant, 2000). These
behaviors include career exploration, development of Knowledge, skills, and abilities,
networking and promoting one’s achievements. Summarily, this theory emphasizes that career
success is as a result of the worker’s belief in his or ability to perform well and be successful in a
given career, and also, the extent to which the outcomes of a certain career is in line with the
worker’s goals and aspirations. If the outcome of the work is positively in line with the worker’s
career objectives and expectations, he will perform more in the organization and will be more
likely to be more successful in his or her work.

18
Self-Consistency Theory
The notion that individuals seek consistency has been central to psychological thinking for
decades, with researchers suggesting individuals seek cognitive consistency or balance between
their attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Festinger, 1954, Heider, 1958). One of the earliest integrations
of this notion within organizational psychology was Korman’s (1970) self-consistency theory.
Self-consistency theory sought to provide a theoretical framework for organizational hypotheses
regarding self-esteem level, with the general premise being that individuals with high self-esteem
would be more satisfied, productive and more successful at work. In Korman’s (1970) words,
“individuals will be motivated to perform on a task or job in a manner which is consistent with
their self-image,” suggesting a positive main effect of self-esteem level on job performance and
career success. This theoretical framework has been the basis for a substantial amount of
organizational research on self-esteem level (Pierce & Gardner, 2004). However, a recent review
of the literature concluded that, contrary to self-consistency theory predictions, the evidence is
equivocal on whether or not high self-esteem is related to better performance and more
successful career (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, and Vohs, 2003). Despite these counter
researches, the proponents of this theory emphasizes the fact that individuals with a high, stable
and consistent self-esteem are more adjusted behaviorally and therefore tend to perform better at
work and attain more career success than their counterparts who are relatively low in self-
esteem.
Theoretical Framework of the Study
Career success can be explained from the perspective of Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs
Theory. This theory is based on the simple premise that human beings have needs which are
hierarchically ranked, (Maslow, 1943). There are some needs that are basic to all human beings,

19
and in their absence, nothing else matters. As we satisfy these basic needs, we start looking to
satisfy higher-order needs. Once a lower-level need is satisfied, it no longer serves as a
motivator, Norwood. (1999). This hierarchy is a systematic way of thinking about the different
needs employees may have at any given point and explains different reactions they may have to
similar treatment. An employee who is trying to satisfy her esteem needs may feel gratified when
her supervisor praises her. However, another employee who is trying to satisfy his social needs
may resent being praised by upper management in front of peers if the praise sets him apart from
the rest of the group. So organizations satisfy their employees’ various needs by leveraging the
various facets of the planning-organizing-leading-controlling (P-O-L-C) functions. In the long
run, physiological needs may be satisfied by the person’s pay check, but it is important to
remember that pay may satisfy other needs such as safety and esteem as well. Providing
generous benefits, including health insurance and company-sponsored retirement plans, as well
as offering a measure of job security, will help satisfy safety needs. Social needs may be satisfied
by having a friendly environment, providing a workplace conducive for collaboration and
communication with others. Company picnics and other social get-togethers may also be helpful
if the majority of employees are motivated primarily by social needs (but may cause resentment
if they are not and if they have to sacrifice a Sunday afternoon for a company picnic). Providing
promotion opportunities at work, recognizing a person’s accomplishments verbally or through
more formal reward systems, job titles that communicate to the employee that one has achieved
high status within the organization are among the ways of satisfying esteem needs. Finally, self-
actualization needs may be satisfied by providing development and growth opportunities on or
off the job, as well as by assigning interesting and challenging work. By making the effort to
satisfy the different needs each employee may have at a given time, organizations may ensure a

20
more highly motivated workforce. However, not all people are driven by the same needs, at any
particular time because; different people may be motivated by entirely different factors. It is
important to understand the needs being pursued by each employee. To motivate an employee,
the manager must be able to recognize the needs level at which the employee is operating, and
use those needs as levers of motivation.
Furthermore, Norwood, (1999) proposed that Maslow's hierarchy can be used to describe the
kinds of information individual seek at different levels of development. For example, individuals
at the lowest level seek coping information in order to meet their basic needs. Information that is
not directly connected to helping a person meet his or her needs in a very short time span is
simply left unattended. Individuals at the safety level need helping information. They seek to be
assisted in seeing how they can be safe and secure. Enlightening information is sought by
individuals seeking to meet their belongingness needs. Empowering information is sought by
people at the esteem level. They look for information on how their egos can be developed.
Finally, people in the growth levels of cognitive, aesthetic, and self-actualization seek edifying
information. Though Norwood does not specifically address the level of transcendence, it is safe
to say that individuals at this stage would seek information on how to connect to something
beyond them or how others could be edified. In view of the above, it will therefore be right to
conclude that career success of workers in any organization is strongly linked to the satisfaction
of their various types of needs, this is to say that organizations should structure the working
environment to satisfy the needs of its employers in order to boost performance and increase
their chances of being successful in their chosen career.

21
Empirical Review
The empirical review will review some past researches on the relationship between conscientious
personality, job stress, and gender on career success among workers. The review will follow the
following headings- conscientious personality and career success, job stress and career success,
and gender and career success.
Conscientious Personality and Career Success
It was difficult to get many literatures that studied conscientious personality in particular as it
regards career success and job performance. Because of this, the present research will focus on
the relationship between several personality factors and career success.
To the lay person it is a self-evident fact that personality factors play an important part in job
performance. Yet the psychological literature in this regard is equivocal. While some researchers
found a significant relationship between some personality types and high job performance and
career success, some found the opposite result.
Salgado (1997) conducted a meta-analysis of the five-factor personality dimensions in relation to
performance for three criteria (i.e., supervisory ratings, training ratings and personnel data) and
for five occupational groups using 36 validity studies conducted in Europe. Results indicated that
Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability were valid predictors for all performance criteria and
career success for most occupational groups.
Borman, White, Pulakos and Oppler (1991) and Hough et al. (1990) found a correlation of 0.80
between reliability (an aspect of Conscientiousness) and job performance. Various researchers
(Barrick & Mount, 1991; Barrick, Mount & Strauss, 1993; Sackett & Wannek, 1996) reported
significant correlations between Conscientiousness and job performance. According to Sackett

22
and Wannek (1996), the relationship between Conscientiousness and job performance could be
attributed to the conceptual relationship between Conscientiousness and integrity.
Also, autonomy and goal setting influence the relationship between Conscientiousness and job
performance (Barrick & Mount, 1993; Barrick et al., 1993). Furthermore, several studies
reported research evidence suggesting that personality is related differently to different
dimensions of job performance. Using a sample of hotel workers, Stewart and Carson (1995)
related Conscientiousness, Extraversion and Agreeableness to three different performance
variables (i.e. citizenship, dependability and work output) and found significant validity
coefficients for Conscientiousness and Extraversion, but for different sets of criteria.
Conscientiousness positively predicted dependability and work output, and
Extraversion inversely predicted citizenship and dependability.
In general, conscientiousness is positively correlated with measures of intrinsic career success,
though the multivariate evidence is far less consistent. Meta-analytic evidence indicates that
conscientiousness is positively associated with job (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002) and life
satisfaction (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998). Judge et al. (1999) found that conscientiousness strongly
predicted intrinsic success (β = .34, p < .01), even when personality was measured during
childhood and the latter variables were measured in mid adulthood. On the other hand, several
studies have found limited incremental validity of conscientiousness in predicting career success
with a multivariate design. Representative findings include non-significant relationships of β =
.06 (Seibert & Kraimer, 2001) and β = .09 (Bozionelos, 2004) or small but significant effects of
β = −.05 among American executives and β = .10 among European executives (Boudreau et al.,
2001).

23
Though evidence suggests that the bivariate relationship between conscientiousness and indices
of intrinsic career success is positive, this relationship tends to deteriorate and becomes less
consistent when the influence of the other Big Five traits is taken into account.
Conscientiousness is theoretically linked to extrinsic career success most strongly through the
achievement orientation of conscientious persons (McCrae & Costa, 1991). Barrick and Mount
(1991) found a small, positive correlation (ρ = .17) between conscientiousness and salary in five
studies. Judge et al. (1999) found that conscientiousness strongly predicted extrinsic success (β =
.44, p < .01). Conscientiousness also seems to enable persons to obtain promotions into more
complex and prestigious jobs. A consistent finding from the assessment center literature is that
ratings of achievement orientation effectively predict promotions (e.g., r = .28, p < .01; Howard
& Bray, 1994). Orpen (1983) also found that need for achievement predicted 5-year salary
growth in a sample of South African managers. Here again, though, there is disconfirmatory
evidence. Seibert and Kraimer (2001) found that conscientiousness failed to predict salary (β = –
.03, ns) and number of promotions (βˆ = –.04, ns). Similarly, Bozionelos (2004) found that
conscientiousness failed to predict self-reported promotion rate (β = –.06, ns). Boudreau et al.
(2001) found that conscientiousness was weakly associated with extrinsic career success; across
three criteria in two samples, only one coefficient was significant (salary of European executives,
β = .06, p < .05).
In sum, it appears that the multivariate results on the relationship between conscientiousness and
intrinsic and extrinsic success are far from consistent. There is a trend for the relationship to be
positive in both cases, but in general, the results vary from moderately strong and positive to
quite weak.

24
Prior literature shows that people who score high on conscientiousness and extraversion and low
on neuroticism and agreeableness score higher on extrinsic and intrinsic career success. (Judge et
al., 1999; Judge et al., 2002; Seibert and Kraimer., 2001). The exact hypotheses and arguments
for them are now presented. Judge et al., (1999) shows that there is a positive relationship
between conscientiousness and career success. Conscientiousness is linked with being efficient,
hard-working and organized and those aspects proved to have a positive influence on extrinsic
career success. Conscientiousness leads to a higher possibility of satisfying work rewards like
payment or promotions (extrinsic) and recognition, respect and feelings of personal
accomplishments (intrinsic) (Organ and Lingl., 1995). Harrell and Alpert (1989) found that
extraversion has a positive influence on income. They argue that extravert people have more
social contacts at work. This can help them to get a promotion and to get higher incomes.
Headey and Wearing (1989) found that extravert employees had higher job satisfaction. They
argue that extraverts are more positive by their nature and they generalized this to job
satisfaction. There are mixed results concerning the effect of agreeableness on career success. On
the one hand agreeableness can be rewarded by employers because these people are more likely
to give positive response to employers (Salgado, 1997). Also, more agreeable people are less
likely to claim higher wages and more likely to get overruled by others. This is the reason that
people who are more agreeable are more likely to have lower incomes and also have less joy in
their work (Johnson, 1997; Judge et al., 1999). The main consensus regarding agreeableness is
that it relates negatively to career success. With regard to neuroticism, Barrick and Mount (1991)
and Salgado (1997) found that neuroticism is negatively related to job performance across
occupations. Therefore it is expected that neuroticism leads to lower wages. Prior literature also
suggests that neuroticism leads to lower intrinsic career success (Smith et al., 1983). This is due

25
to the fact that more neuroticism leads to persons overreacting to situations at work which is
generalized to intrinsic career success.
Finally, most meta-analyses on the relation between conscientiousness and job performance
show that it is the variable with the largest positive influence effect on career success (Barrick et
al., 1991 Salgado, 1997). Conscientiousness was associated with high degrees of performance
and success across all occupational groups and all measures of performance.
Job Stress and Career Success
There are dearths of research on the relationship between work stress and career success.
Because of this, most literatures to be reviewed in this section will focus on the relationship
between job stress and work performance bearing in mind the fact that a worker’s career cannot
be successful without a high performance on the job.
Beehr, Jex, Stacy & Murray (2000) studied the relationship between occupational stressors and
the performance of employees of an organization as well as it can affect the employees
psychologically. Jamal (1984) studied the association between job stress and job performance
between managers and blue-collar employees. A random sample of 305 blue-collar and 325
managerial workers in Canadian firm are assessed through structured questionnaire. Variables
used for this study were job stress, job performance, and organizational commitment. A negative
linear relationship between job stress and job performance was found very limited evidence is
seen for curvilinear or no association.
Recent reports have drawn attention to high levels of occupational stress among university staff
in comparison to other occupational groups in the United Kingdom (e.g., Kinman & Jones, 2003;
Tytherleigh, Webb, Cooper, & Ricketts, 2005). Conversely, research examining the impact of
stress levels on the productivity of staff and universities is sparse. Moreover, much of what has

26
been reported identified relationships using only self-report measures of productivity and has
concentrated principally on academic staff (e.g., Blix & Cruise, 1994; Kinman, 1996). Winefield,
Gillespie, Stough, Dua, Hapuarachchi, & Boyd, (2003) study of stress in Australian universities
is one of the few to use a range of university-based objective measures of productivity. They
found that work-related measures of stress were significantly and negatively linearly related to
objective university-based performance measures such as funding cuts, staff-student ratios, and
investment income. Different relationships between stress and performance were also found by
category of employee, with academic staff reporting slightly higher levels of psychological
distress and lower levels of job satisfaction compared with nonacademic staff.
Jacobs, Tytherleigh, Webb, Cooper (2007), in their study, used university-based statistics of
performance and self-rated employee productivity to examine the relationship between stress
levels, organizational commitment, health, and performance. The authors conducted a secondary
analysis of data from staff in 13 higher education institutions. In common with earlier research,
the authors found that stressors had a negative linear relationship with all the performance
measures used. However, this relationship was also influenced by physical health, psychological
well-being, and organizational commitment, and by the measure of performance used. In
addition, the authors found variations in the relationship between performance and stress by
category of staff, which suggests the influence of job factors.
Later research studies have shown that a variety of contextual and personal variables impact
upon or mediate the stressor-job performance relationship. Jamal and Baba’s (2001) study of
Canadian college teachers found correlations between Global Type A behavior and job
productivity, and between time pressure, competitiveness, and job performance. Cropanzano,
Rupp, and Byrne (2003) and Halpern (2005) reported a strong association between stress levels

27
and both physical and mental health along with reduced performance. Workers who are ill are
more likely to take sick leave and have a reduced capacity to perform successfully at work.
However, the relationship between psychological well-being and performance is less clear.
Even researches in the health sectors reveal that Doctors in the field of medicine have to usually
face a lot hurdles and one the most evident factor which originates and impacts directly their
personal and professional lives is stress. Low job satisfaction correlated with contemplation of giving up
work due to stress, physicians and surgeons were more likely to have lower job satisfaction scores ifthey felt
unable to remain competent in their field of work (Dowell, Anthony 2001). There is a negative
correlation between job stress and job performance. Those subjects who had high level of job stress had
low job performance. All the factors affected males more than females, in case of certain
situation. The kind of stress towards which the doctors are exposed to usually result in such negative
factor that places at the life of the innocents which they attend. And such stresses increases the chances of fatal
errors lowering job performance (Kazmi Rubina, 2007). Occupational stress inadvertently consequences low
organizational performance (Elovainio et al. 2002), Job stress although has belittling impact on any
organization and individual’s performance but can shape dire consequences when related to
health care (Mimura e.t al. 2003). Job stress is considered rising and has become challenge for
the employer and because high level stress results in low productivity, increased absenteeism and
collection to other employee problems like alcoholism, drug abuse, hypertension and host of
cardiovascular problems (Meneze 2005). The above researches found a negative relationship between work
stress and workperformance. Inotherwords, the higher a workerexperiences stressful workatmosphere, theless
motivated he or she will be in performing his or her job duties efficiently. In the same vein, it could be reasoned
that poor performance is antithetical to a worker’s successful career. As a result of this, high work stress could
negativelyimpactonemployeecareersuccess.

28
Gender and Career Success
Conceptual writings on gender differences in career success and some empirical research have
generally indicated that women compare unfavorably with men on salary treatment (Reder,
1978; Strober, 1982; Devanna, 1984) and on upward mobility (Lewis, 1986a; DiPrete & Soule,
1988). While there is some degree of consensus among writers in the field that women in
management are underpaid and underrepresented in the middle and top levels of organizations
compared to their male counterparts, the quest to explain why these differences exist continues.
Various rationales have been offered for why women in managerial careers generally have not
achieved to the same level as men. One set of explanations centers on human-capital reasons
such as less education, seniority, training, and experience (Brown, 1979; Hauser, 1980; Mincer
& Pulachek, 1974). Human capital explanations suggest that gender differences in career success
can be remedied by improving the qualifications of women to match levels of the men with
whom they compete for promotions and pay increases. Following this reasoning, women and
men with comparable education, training, and experience would achieve similar levels of career
success.
A second explanation focuses on higher levels of work-family conflict and career interruptions
for women (Rothwell, 1986). The demands of marriage, housework, child care, and pregnancies
are much greater in general for women than for men with families (Strober, 1982). These
demands affect the career success of managerial women primarily through their effect on
variables such as lower seniority due to career interruptions (Olson & Frieze, 1987), spousal
support for advancement, and time and energy (Hochschild, 1989). Explanations related to
women’s family responsibilities suggest that relieving the tension between work and family
demands will clear barriers to women’s career success. While human-capital and work-family

29
role conflict are undoubtedly relevant factors, empirical studies of gender differences in careers
have indicated that these traditional explanations do not fully account for gender differences in
career success. For example, Stewart and Gudykunst (1982) and Cannings (1988) found
differences in upward mobility success even after human-capital investments were controlled,
and Tucker (1985) has shown that gender differences in career outcomes cannot be fully
accounted for by work-family conflict issues.
A third set of explanations proceed from the premise that career success differences between
men and women are rooted in various forms of discrimination against women by their employers
and their management (Larwood & Gattiker, 1985; Day & Stogdill, 1972). Prominent in this
vanguard is the claim that stereotypical views and prejudice against women in management are
often manifested in involuntary differences in career paths such as inability of women to gain
access to line jobs and job-class segregation (Martin, Harrison, & DiNitto, 1983; Larwood,
Gutek, & Gattiker, 1984). The potential importance of career paths to career success in general,
and to gender-based success differences in particular, is also suggested by internal labor market
research (e.g., Baron, Davis-Blake, & Bielby, 1986; DiPrete, 1987) and by research comparing
careers of men and women (Larwood & Gattiker, 1987; Tucker, 1985; Markam, South, Bonjean,
& Corder, 1985).
Several researchers have noted that job structures of organizations are often highly segregated
such that women are concentrated in career ladders of relatively low status and pay (Kanter,
1977; Stamp, 1986; Kessler-Harris, 1990). Larwood and Gattiker studied career paths of 215
men and women defined as successful by personnel administrators in their respective
oganizations. They concluded that career paths of successful women often differ from those of

30
successful men, and that the career paths of successful women are less predictable than those of
men.
Previous research has also shown that in general women have been employed less frequently
than men in line positions. Olson and Frieze (1985) and Olson, Good, and Frieze (1987) found
that women MBAs are more likely than men to be found in staff positions. Gender differences in
line and staff assignments have often been used to explain overall gender differences in pay and
promotion, and women have been cautioned to avoid staff jobs (Perlmutter and Alexander,
1978).
Research addressing gender comparisons on employer mobility has produced inconsistent
results. Some research suggests that women are more inclined to have single-employer careers
(Flanders & Anderson, 1973; Hennig & Jardim, 1977). Alternatively, Sehgal (1984) reviews data
indicating that organizational mobility is closely linked with occupational stability, and that the
rate at which women change occupations has increased substantially since the 1960s while that
of men has remained stable. Likewise, DePasquale and Lange (1971) found that men and women
were equally likely to move from job to job and from organization to organization, especially in
the early years of their careers.
Many different studies have supported the hypothesis that males are more successful in their
career than females and have also demonstrated a significant career success differential between
men and women (Stroh et al., 1992; Cannings, 1991, Eberts and Stone, 1985). In fact, men and
women do not always begin with the same attributes, and even when they do, they nevertheless
achieve different levels of objective career success.
Women seem to face obstacles unrelated to their professional duties and responsibilities, which
are detrimental to their career development (Ohlott; Ruderman, & McCauley, 1994). Role

31
socialization conditions women to accept certain responsibilities outside their work, from which
men are exempt. Overall, these constraints often force women into what is known as the
"mommy track", i.e. career paths reserved exclusively for women (Konrad & Cannings, 1991).
These paths contain low profile positions offering few challenges, thus reducing the
opportunities for promotion and creating a vicious circle in which women have little chance of
pushing their way through the glass ceiling (Ohlott et al., 1994).
The theory of family context suggests that the family environment in which men and women live
may have a significant impact on their career success. Generally speaking, men seem to be
favoured and women penalized by the features of the family context.
For example, men seem to benefit more from marriage than women. According to Pfeffer and
Ross (1982), a married woman who does not participate actively in the labour market is
considered to be an additional resource for her spouse, enabling him to invest more in his career.
The reverse, however, does not seem to hold true.
Some studies have shown that the number of dependent children has a positive impact on career
advancement for men, and a negative impact for women. Hersch (1991) suggested that the
number of children affects the behaviour of men, among other things by increasing their
motivation for, involvement in and commitment to their work. In contrast, the size of the family
seems to have a negative effect on the career advancement of women, because women are forced
by social, structural or personal factors to devote more time than men to family responsibilities
(Crompton and Sanderson, 1990).
Married women with children tend to invest more in their families and less in their human capital
and careers (Neumark and McLennan, 1994). The results of Tharenou, Latimer, & Conroy, (1994),
support this, showing that family status (married, number of children) has a negative impact (-

32
0.13*) on the work experience of women and a positive impact on that of men (0.11*). For men,
work and family are complementary, while for women they tend to be more conflictual. Lobel
and St-Clair (1994) found that individuals who consider family-related values to be more
important receive fewer salary increases based on merit and put less effort into their work than
those who consider work-related values to be more important.
Although very little empirical work has been done on the question, individual values and
motivations nevertheless seem to explain differences in the level of career success achieved by
men and women (Jaskolka, Beyer, & Trice, 1985). Stewart and Gudykunst (1982) suggested that
this category of variable has a greater impact among women than among men. A number of
studies have shown that men and women hold different values and are motivated by different
things (Schein, Mueller, & Jacobson, (1989). For example, women are more likely to conform,
and are more understanding, less confident in themselves and less independent. Their ideas,
attitudes and value systems are structured so as to respond to this social and cultural vision.
Moreover, these factors influence certain values and motivations of women at work, such as the
level of work investment and perception of fairness. (Chusmir and Durand, 1987). The fact that
the values and motivations of women differ from the dominant masculine models may act as a
brake upon the career advancement of female managers. Furthermore, a number of situational
and environmental factors such as conflicts and ambiguity of roles act on organizational
commitment among women (Lee, Ashford, Walsh, & Mowday, 1992; Pierce and Dunham, 1987).
Structural barriers unquestionably exist, and may explain the low percentage of women in some
sectors and job categories. These same barriers may perhaps explain the difference in career
success among men and women. Some studies have shown that the industrial sector has an
impact on individual salaries. For example, Hannan, Schömann, & Blossfeld, (1990) showed that

33
the industrial sector explained 4% of salary variation. Groshen (1990) found an 11% variation
between men and women in the manufacturing sector, and 25% in the service sector. Similarly,
Blum, Fields, & Goodman, (1994) showed that women held more management positions in
nonmanufacturing sectors such as the public sector than in manufacturing sectors. These authors
also found that female managers are more prevalent in sectors offering lower salaries.
However, the public sector may reduce some of the effects of workplace discrimination
(Almquist, 1987). In fact, we need only consider the rigorous collective agreements governing
the public sector, which give a certain amount of protection to minority groups. People also tend
to presume that organizational structures are sexually neutral. Yet, most commanding positions
are held by men, who tend to delegate, give responsibility and accord the best promotions in
terms of career advancement to men rather than women (Acker, 1990).
Finally, Shenav (1992) shows that women and blacks had lower chances of promotion to
managerial positions compared to male and white samples. The finding was more congruent with
results supporting gender segregation. However, Pfeffer and Davis-Blake (1987) found that the
proportion of women in the organization is negatively associated with compensation of both men
and women in both cross-sectional and longitudinal research design. Another demographic
variable commonly studied in relation to career success is marital status. Several studies show
that married employees have higher salaries and number of promotions than non-married
employees (Ng et al., 2005; Judge et al., 1995).
Summary of Literature Review
This literature review basically contains the theoretical and the empirical review of the study.
The theoretical review used some theories to explain career success. The theories reviewed

34
include: Person environment fit model, sponsored mobility model, social cognitive theory, self-
consistency theory, and need motivation theory.
The person environment model assumes that, that for a worker to achieve success in his or her
work, the organization has to match the skills, knowledge and abilities of the workers to the
demands of the jobs in such organizations, the sponsored mobility model emphasizes that if
organizations invest in their worker’s career development, they will be more successful in the
job, furthermore, the social cognitive theory argues that if the outcome of the work is positively
in line with the worker’s career objectives and expectations, he will perform more in the
organization and will be more likely to be more successful in his or her work, the self-
consistency theory emphasizes that individuals with a high, stable and consistent self-esteem are
more adjusted behaviorally and therefore tend to perform better at work and attain more career
success than their counterparts who are relatively low in self- esteem; finally, the need
achievement theory argues that workers will be more motivated to achieve success in a given
organization if each worker’s needs are identified and satisfied by the organization. Success of
employees is directly related to the extent of the satisfaction of these needs.
In empirical review, it was found that majority of the empirical literatures found that
conscientious personality trait is positively related to career success among workers, on the other
hand job stress was negatively related to job performance which was reviewed as an indices of
career success. Finally, all the researches reviewed on gender differences in career success
indicates that female workers due to some reasons are disadvantaged in their career and tend to
be less successful than their male counterparts.

35
1.7 Research Questions
The research will attempt to answer the following questions-
1. Will conscientious personality have a positive relationship with career success among
workers?
2. Will work stress be negatively related with career success among workers?
3. Will male workers report higher career success than female workers?
1.8 Research Hypotheses
In an attempt to answer the above questions and fulfill the aims and objectives of conducting this
research, the study formulates the following hypotheses:
1. There will be a positive relationship between conscientious personality and career
success among workers.
2. Work stress will have a negative relationship with career success among workers.
3. Male workers will report higher career success than female workers.

36
CHAPTER TWO
METHOD
2.1 Research Setting
The study was conducted in four different organisations namely: PZ Cussonplc,
GlaxoSmithKline consumer plc, both within illupeju industrial estate inside lagos metropolis,
Mouka Limited located at Plot M Awosika Avenue, Ikeja Industrial estate. Ikeja, Lagos and
finally, Dangote Pasta located at NPA Lighter Terminal, Ebute, Ikorodu, Lagos.
2.2 Participants
The participants comprised of 75 workers from PZ cusson plc, 41 workers from
GlaxoSmithKline consumer plc, 36 workers from Mouka Limited and 54 workers from Dangote
Pasta. A total of 220 questionnaires were distributed but only 206 were rightly filled and
therefore only this figure was used for the study. Out of this number, 115 were male workers
while 91 were female workers. All the workers were within the age bracket of 20-45 years with a
mean age of 33.4.
2.3 Sampling Technique
The study made use of the purposive sampling technique to select the participants that responded
to the questionnaires. This is because of the nature of the research as the researcher approached
the organizations without any form of randomization and only those that agreed to participate in
the research were subsequently sampled.

37
2.4 Research Design
The study made use of a survey design. It adopted the use of questionnaires for data collection.
2.5 Instruments
Three instruments were used for the collection of data in this study; they include:
conscientiousness sub scale of the big five inventory (BFI) developed by John, & Srivastava,
(1999); Job Tension Scale (JTS) developed by Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, and Rosenthal
(1964); and the Career Success Scale (CSS) developed by Dries, Pepermans, & Carlier, (2008).
The conscientiousness scale is a sub component of the big five inventory developed by John, &
Srivastava, (1999). This is a nine-item scale that measures individual’s level of
conscientiousness. The scale has a five-point Likert-type format where one corresponds to
‘Disagree strongly’ and five corresponds to ‘agree strongly’. Therefore, high scores on this scale
suggest high levels of Conscientiousness by workers. Items 2, 4, 5, and 9 were reverse scored
while others were directly scored. John, & Srivastava, (1999) report a high coefficient alpha of
0.80 and a 3 month test retest reliability of .85.
The job tension scale is a 15-item inventory designed to assess the nature, cause and
consequences of two aspects of organizational stress which are role conflict and role ambiguity.
The scale is designed in a 5-point Likert format with a response option ranging from never (1) to
nearly all the time (5). The higher the scores on the scale the higher a worker’s level of job
stress. The JTS has a coefficient of alpha reported by Sheridan et.al (1978) and Oseghare (1998)
which are .87 and .89 respectively. A concurrent validity of .01 was obtained by correlating JTS
with rated performance (Sheridan et.al, 1978) while Oseghare (1988) obtained a coefficient of

38
.46 when correlated JTS equivalent with checklist symptoms stress by Kyriacou and Sutcliffe
(1978).
The third instrument used in the study is Career Success Scale developed by Dries, Pepermans,
& Carlier, (2008). The career success scale measures four major dimensions of career success-
inter-personal achievement, intra-personal achievement, intrapersonal affect and inter personal
affect. The scale contains 42 items that measures different aspects of a worker’s success in his or
her career. The scale is in a five- point Likert format ranging from strongly disagree (1) to
strongly agree (5). Higher scores on the scale depict higher career success of a worker. The
researcher conducted a pilot study with 60 workers and found a chronbach’s alpha reliability of
.81 for the overall scale.
2.6 Procedure
The researcher adopted a purposive sampling technique for the research and approached 6
factories to conduct the research there but only four of them agreed to assist the researcher by
responding to the questionnaires. The researcher sought permission from the human resource
department of the selected factories and got permission to administer the questionnaire. The
respondents were thereafter approached and after explaining the objectives of the study, the
researcher requested for their assistance in filling the questionnaire. Questionnaire was
administered in batches, company by company to facilitate easier accountability of
questionnaire. The respondents were assured of their confidentiality and anonymity of their
responses as their responses is strictly for academic and research purpose. Out of the 220
questionnaires distributed, only 206 were properly filled and therefore used for the analysis in
the study, while 14 were discarded.

39
2.7 Data Analysis
The statistical analysis employed in this study was the Pearson Product Moment Correlation,
Linear Regression and the Independent sample t-test analysis.

40
CHAPTER THREE
RESULTS
In this chapter, the major results of the entire analysis were explained in details. These include
the norms (mean) and standard deviation, as well as the analysis of the hypotheses postulated in
the study.
Two hundred and six respondents comprising of 115 males and 91 females participated in the
study. The respondents were selected using the purposive sampling technique. Mean score and
standard deviation was obtained. This is shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for Conscientiousness, Job Stress and Career Success by
Gender
Variables
Male Female Total
M N SD M N SD M N SD
Conscientiousness 29.51 115 8.90 29.84 91 8.59 29.66 206 8.78
Job Stress 43.27 115 12.25 43.04 91 11.87 43.27 206 12.25
Career Success 142.03 115 32.28 132.35 91 34.14 142.03 206 32.28
The Table one above indicates that female participants (M=29.84, SD=8.59) slightly reported more
conscientiousness than male participants (M=29.51, SD=8.90). However, male workers reported higher
job stress (M=43.27, SD=12.25) than female participants (M=43.04, SD=11.87). Similarly, male
participants reported higher career success (M=142.03, SD=32.28) than female workers (M=132.35,
SD=34.14).

41
Testing of Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1: There will be a positive significant relationship between conscientiousness
personality and career success among workers.
Hypothesis 2: There will be a negative significant relationship between job stress and career success.
Table 2: Pearson Product Moment Correlation Matrix between Conscientious
Personality, Job Stress and Career Success
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3
1. Conscientiousness 29.66 8.78 1
2. Job Stress 43.27 12.25 -.47** 1
3. Career Success 142.03 32.28 .52** -.69** 1
** Correlation is significant at p<0.05 (2-tailed)
Table 2 present the result of correlation conducted to ascertain the relationship between
conscientious personality and job stress on career success. Table two revealed a moderate
positive relationship between conscientious personality and career success (r = .52, p< .05). This
positive correlation indicates that as a worker’s conscientiousness increases, the tendency for a
worker to be successful in his/her career also increases. Thus the hypothesis one which states that
there will be a positive relationship between conscientious personality and career success was
accepted. Furthermore, Table two above revealed a negative relationship between job stress and
career success (r = -.69, p< .05). This high correlation indicates that as a worker’s perceived
stress in the organization increases, the tendency for a worker to be successful in his/her career
decreases. Thus the hypothesis two which states that there will be a negative relationship
between job stress and career success was accepted.

42
In order to determine the contribution of both conscientiousness and job stress to the variances
observed in career success, regression analysis was computed. The result is presented in Table
2B
Table 2b: Regression Table of the Predictive Relationship between Conscientious
Personality and Career Success
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. R R2
F Pv
B Std.
Error
Beta
Conscientious
personality
1.99 .23 .52 8.78 .001 .52 .27 77.09 Sig
Job Stress -1.92 .14 -.69 -13.74 .001 .69 .48 188.89 Sig
Dependent Variable, Career Success, ** p< .05
From the table 2b above, regression analysis reveals that conscientiousness significantly predicted career
success among workers B= .52, t (205) = 8.78, p < .05. Conscientious personality explained 27% of the
variances in career success, R2
= .27, F (1, 205) = 77.09, p < .05. This result indicates support for
hypothesis 1. Also, The results in 2b shows that job stress independently contributed significantly to the
observed variance in career success (Beta = -.69, t = 13.74, p<0.05). Also, job stress explained 48% of the
variances in career success, R2
= .48, F (1, 205) = 188.89, p < .05. This result indicates support for
hypothesis 2

43
Hypothesis 3: Male workers report higher career success than female workers.
Table 3: Independent t-test Comparison of Career Success by Gender
Career Success
N Mean SD t Df Sig. pvGender
Male 115 142.03 32.28
2.07 204 .04 SigFemale 91 132.35 34.14
Significant at p<0.05
Table 3 above presents the independent t-test conducted to find out if there are gender
differences on career success among workers. The result showed that male workers significantly
reported higher career success (M = 142.03, SD =32.28) than female workers (M = 132.35, SD =
34.14); t (204) = 2.07, p< 0.05. Therefore the third hypothesis which states that male workers
would report higher career success than female workers was also accepted.

44
CHAPTER FOUR
DISCUSSION
This study investigated the influence of conscientious personality, job stress and gender as
predictors of career success among workers. Three hypotheses were tested in the current research
and the hypotheses are the basis of our discussion in this chapter.
After the research, it was found that a significant positive relationship existed between
conscientiousness and career success among workers. In addition, conscientiousness predicted
career success and that it contributed a high variance in the variances attributed to career success.
The result supports other previous researches which reported positive relationship between
conscientious personality and career success. For example Salgado (1997) conducted a meta-
analysis of the five-factor personality dimensions in relation to performance for three criteria
(i.e., supervisory ratings, training ratings and personnel data) and for five occupational groups
using 36 validity studies conducted in Europe. His results indicated that Conscientiousness and
Emotional Stability were valid predictors for all performance criteria and career success for most
occupational groups. Also, Borman, White, Pulakos and Oppler (1991) found a correlation of
0.80 between reliability (an aspect of Conscientiousness) and job performance. Similarly,
Barrick & Mount, 1991; Barrick, Mount & Strauss, 1993; Sackett & Wannek, 1996) reported
significant correlations between Conscientiousness and job performance. Judge, Heller, &
Mount, (2002) reported that in general, conscientiousness is positively correlated with measures
of intrinsic career success, though the multivariate evidence is far less consistent. Judge et al.
(1999) found that conscientiousness strongly predicted intrinsic success, even when personality
was measured during childhood and the latter variables were measured in mid adulthood. Judge
et al., (1999) shows that there is a positive relationship between conscientiousness and career

45
success. All these researches are clear indication that as a worker’s conscientiousness increases,
his or her success in their present job/career also increases. This is probably so because
conscientious individuals are highly resourceful and dedicated to their job. This commitment and
fastidious nature exhibited by highly conscientious individuals shoot them to the highest level of
the career they chose to enter. Also, conscientiousness has been linked with being efficient, hard-
working and organized and those aspects proved to have a positive influence on extrinsic career
success. Finally, conscientiousness leads to a higher possibility of satisfying work rewards like
payment or promotions (extrinsic) and recognition, respect and feelings of personal
accomplishments so it is not surprising that the result agreed with past findings.
Hypothesis two which state that there will be a negative significant relationship between job
stress and career success was also accepted. Regression analysis was also done to ascertain the
predictive reliability of the relationship between job stress and career success among workers.
The result indicates job stress is negatively related with career success among workers. This
means that much pressure and stress around the worker reduces his or her chances of success in
his or her career. This result is consistent with past findings on these two variables of interest.
For instance, Jamal (1984) studied the association between job stress and job performance
between managers and blue-collar employees and found negative linear relationship between job
stress and job performance. Similarly, Winefield, Gillespie, Stough, Dua, Hapuarachchi, &
Boyd, (2003) study of stress in Australian universities is one of the few to use a range of
university-based objective measures of productivity. They found that work-related measures of
stress were significantly and negatively linearly related to objective university-based
performance measures such as funding cuts, staff-student ratios, and investment income.

46
Jacobs, Tytherleigh, Webb, Cooper (2007), in their study, used university-based statistics of
performance and self-rated employee productivity to examine the relationship between stress
levels, organizational commitment, health, and performance. The authors conducted a secondary
analysis of data from staff in 13 higher education institutions. In common with earlier research,
the authors found that stressors had a negative linear relationship with all the performance
measures used.
Cropanzano, Rupp, and Byrne (2003) and Halpern (2005) reported a strong association between
stress levels and both physical and mental health along with reduced performance. Workers who
are ill are more likely to take sick leave and have a reduced capacity to perform successfully at
work. The above researches which indicates that stress is negatively related with job
performance is an indication that high job pressure and hostile job environment is antithetical to
a worker’s career success. This may be due to the fact that high stress at work increases the
likelihood of a worker developing physical illness, dissatisfaction and other negative job
attributes. High stress at work could also lead to an undue pressure on the worker which makes
him or her hyper active and most times confused. This confusion may lead to unnecessary
mistakes at job which may reduce his or her job performance ratings.
Hypothesis three which states that male workers will report higher career success in their job
than female workers was also accepted. The finding revealed that male workers reported higher
career success than female workers. This finding is consistent with past researchers who found
that male workers seem to be more successful in their respective careers compared to female
workers who are in similar occupation. For example, Stroh et al., (1992); Cannings, (1991),
Eberts and Stone, (1985) supported the hypothesis that males are more successful in their career
than females and have also demonstrated a significant career success differential between men

47
and women. In fact, men and women do not always begin with the same attributes, and even
when they do, they nevertheless achieve different levels of objective career success. In fact there
has been converging evidence in researches that found that men experience more career success
than women. Also, according to Shenav (1992) women had lower chances of promotion to
managerial positions compared to males. The finding was more congruent with results
supporting gender segregation. There are many explanations to why women could be less
successful in their career than men. For example, a number of studies have shown that men and
women hold different values and are motivated by different things (Schein, Mueller, & Jacobson,
(1989), women are more likely to conform, and are more understanding, less confident in
themselves and less independent. Their ideas, attitudes and value systems are structured so as to
respond to this social and cultural vision. Moreover, these factors influence certain values and
motivations of women at work, such as the level of work investment and perception of fairness.
Secondly, women seem to have much work family conflict compared to men. This is because the
woman is a keeper of the home, she takes care of the children and husband at home and still tries
to meet up with the demands of her job. Research has also indicated that greater number of
children in the family has more positive implication for men and negative implications for
women. For men, they become more committed and strive high to achieve success in their job
and career, while for women, it increases their responsibility at home and makes them less
committed to their job.
Finally, according to Ohlott; Ruderman, & McCauley, (1994) women seem to face obstacles
unrelated to their professional duties and responsibilities, which are detrimental to their career
development. Role socialization conditions women to accept certain responsibilities outside their
work, from which men are exempt. Overall, these constraints often force women into what is

48
known as the "mommy track", i.e. career paths reserved exclusively for women (Konrad &
Cannings, 1991). These paths contain low profile positions offering few challenges, thus
reducing the opportunities for promotion and creating a vicious circle in which women have little
chance of pushing their way to success in the highest pyramid of any organisation.

49
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION
5.1 Summary
This Research was carried out to find out the role of conscientious personality, job stress and
gender as predictors of career success among workers.
Three hypotheses were tested in this research and the three of them were accepted. Hypothesis
one was accepted because, the Pearson product moment correlation matrix showed a positive
significant relationship between conscientious personality and career success while the
regression analysis showed that conscientious personality contributed significantly to the
variances in a worker’s career success. This means that as a worker’s conscientious attribute
increases, his or her chances of success in his or her work also increases. With regard to the
finding of this research, this research therefore agrees that conscientiousness is a vital factor of
career success.
Hypothesis two was further accepted because the Pearson Product Moment Correlation Matrix
showed a significant negative relationship between job stress and career success among workers.
This means that tension and stress in the job reduces the likelihood for a work to be successful in
his or her job. As a result of this, the research concludes that job stress in an inhibitory factor to a
worker’s success in his or her career.
Hypothesis three was finally accepted because male workers significantly were more successful
in their career than female workers. This could be as a result of some social stereotypes against
women that make women less favorable in choosing certain career or reaching to certain
managerial level in some careers. Also, many family setbacks makes it very difficult for women

50
to be successful in their career even thou they are more conscientious than their male
counterparts.
5.2 Conclusion
In view of the current research findings, study concludes the following:
(1) That there is a significant relationship between conscientious personality and career
success among workers. In other words, conscientiousness is an important factor to
consider when knowing how successful a worker will be in his or her career
(2) There is a significant negative relationship between job stress and career success among
workers. As a result, this research concludes that job stress has detrimental effect on
every worker’s chances of being successful in his or job. In conclusion, different
managers should ensure that they bring the stress and tension inherent in their work
environment to the barest minimum to ensure a successful career by their employees.
(3) The research also concludes that male workers enjoy more success in their respective
careers than female workers. Because of this, it is advisable to bring into consideration
the issue of gender when recruiting some job positions. This is because it has been noted
that different factors make women less likely to succeed in some careers than their male
folks.
5.3 Implication of the Study
This study has some implications on what the managers and employees of every organisation
should do in order to achieve a successful and accomplished career by the workers. Firstly, it is
crystal clear from the findings of the current and as well as the previous researches that a
worker’s level of conscientiousness can determine how far he or she goes in his or her current
career. This finding has practical implications for all the managers and human resource personnel

51
of every organisation on things to consider while undergoing the recruitment processes. They
should give workers some psychological tests to determine their level of conscientiousness. With
this, they could comfortably predict how successful the worker will be in the work he or she is
being interviewed for. Also, the research and many others before it identified high stress as an
inhibitor of job performance and career success. Because of this the management of every
organisation should design the work environment in such a manner that the stress level will be
minimal. This will go a long way to increase the success of every worker on their job.
Furthermore, the research has practical implication on how managers should construct the
leadership and promotional structures of the organisation to be gender sensitive. They should
make some policies that make it possible for women to attain the same level of job success with
their male counterparts.
Finally, every worker despite family and work pressure or challenges should adopt good stress
coping strategy in order to adapt and reduce the effect of stress on them and thus increase their
chances of having a successful career.
5.4 Recommendations
This research investigated the role of conscientious personality, job stress and gender as
predictors of career success among workers.
The following recommendations are therefore made:
(1) Managers should design the working environment to be stress free in order to ensure that
their workers undergo minimal stress and therefore have more chance of maximizing
their potentials to achieve success in their job.

52
(2) Both male and female employees must be treated fairly in organizations, unequal
treatment, stereotypes and some unfavorable company policies sometime give men the
competitive edge over their female counterparts.
(3) Every organisation should ensure they have an organisational psychologist as part of their
recruitment team. This expert should therefore conduct personality tests on the potential
candidates for different job positions to ascertain their level of conscientiousness and then
predict their chances of success on the job.

53
REFERENCES
Abele, A. E., & Wiese, B. (2008). The nomological network of self-management strategies and
Abele, A. E., and Spurk, D. (2009a). “How do objective and subjective career success interrelate
over time?” Journal for Occupational and Organizational Psychology 82, no. 4, 803–
824.
Abele, A. E., and Spurk, D. (2009b). “The longitudinal impact of self-efficacy and career goals
on objective and subjective career success.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 74, no. 1,
53–62.
Abele-Brehm, A., and Stief, M. (2004). “Die Prognose des Berufserfolgs von
Hochschulabsolventinnen und -absolventen: Befunde zur ersten und zweiten Erhebung
der Erlanger Längssschnittstudie BELA-E.” Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und
Organisationspsychologie 48, no. 1, 4–16.
Acker, A. (1990), "Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A theory of Gender Organizations", Gender &
Society, 4, 2, June, 139-158.
Allen, N., and Meyer, J. “Organizational commitment: Evidence of career stage effects?”
Journal of Business Research 26, no. 1 (1993): 49–61.
Almquist, E.M. (1987), "Labor Market Gender Inequality in Minority Groups", Gender &
Society, 1, 4, December, 400-414.
Altimus, C. A., & Tersine, R. J. (1973). Chronological age and job satisfaction: The young blue
collar worker. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 53–66.
Arthur, M. B. (1994). The boundaryless career: A new perspective for organizational mquiry.
Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 15, 295-306.
Arthur, M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (Eds.). (1996). The boundaryless career. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Arthur, M. B., Khapova, S. N., & Wilderom, C. P. M. (2005). Career success in a boundaryless
career world. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 26, 177–202.
Arthur, M. B., Khapova, S. N., and Wilderom, C. P. M. “Career success in a boundaryless career
world.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 26, no. 2 (2005): 177–202.
Ballout, H.I. (2007). Career success: the effects of human capital, person-environment fit and
organizational support. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22 (8): 741-765.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Baron, J. N., Davis-Blake, A., & Bielby, W. (1986). The structure of opportunity: How
promotion ladders vary within and among organizations. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 31, 248-273.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the
beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next?
International
Barrick, M.R. & Mount, M.K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance:
A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Barrick, M.R. & Mount, M.K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance:
A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Barrick, M.R. & Mount, M.K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationship between the
Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
78, 111-118.

Conscientiousness & Job Stress Impact Career Success

Conscientiousness & Job Stress Impact Career Success

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Conscientiousness & Job Stress Impact Career Success

Similar to Conscientiousness & Job Stress Impact Career Success (20)

Conscientiousness & Job Stress Impact Career Success