1.
Personality
and
Career
Choice
1
Personality and Career Choice
Margarit Davtian
PSYC 565- (SP15)
Maura Harrington
April 28, 2015

2.
Personality
and
Career
Choice
2
Personality and Career Choice
Introduction
The topic of vocational pursuits and the factors that influence one’s career-related
behaviors has been of interest to counseling psychologists, career advisors, and researchers
within the field of industrial/organizational psychology. Traditionally, research in this area has
considered specific vocational factors such as income, benefits, and perceived organizational
success (Boudreau, Boswell, Judge, & Bretz, 2001) as predictive of one’s career-related choices;
the role of personality, however, has received less attention (Reed, Bruch, & Haase, 2004).
Researchers in this area are concerned with pursuing a dispositional approach to understanding
individual differences in career patterns. They argue that, given their early emergence and
stability throughout the lifespan, traits could play a significant role in shaping career-related
pursuits (Reed et al., 2004).
Supporting the notion that personality can have a significant effect on one’s career
development, this paper will explore how trait-theory may account for one’s vocational pursuits,
as well as their organizational success within these pursuits. Using the five-factor model (FFM;
Costa, 1996) as the theoretical framework for a trait-based approach, this paper will examine the
relationship between personality traits and vocational pursuits. If such a relationship is found to
exist, it is reasonable to propose that certain career options are better suited for individuals who
display particular traits or set of traits.
Understanding the role of personality in vocational pursuits will not only explain
individual differences in career patterns, but it will also provide intriguing insight into whether
personality should be an important consideration for career assessment and counseling. Because
there is research to show that people feel most satisfied in occupations that match their interests

3.
Personality
and
Career
Choice
3
and values (Holland, 1997), and personality is conceptually related to these interests (Sagiv,
2002), understanding the role of personality in career choice will enable an individual to gain a
deeper and more meaningful understanding about their occupational experiences and
preferences. This understanding may perhaps help them navigate their career trajectories towards
occupations that align best with their personality characteristics for optimal success.
Theoretical or Conceptual Explanation(s)
Researchers in the field of organizational psychology have widely used personality traits
to understand organizational outcomes and vocational behaviors. Because traits are largely
genetic, develop early, and are relatively enduring throughout one’s life (Costa, 1996), they are
used to explain and predict individual differences in emotion, cognition, motivations, attitudes,
and behaviors across disparate contexts (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Researchers in this area
therefore rely on traits to partially explain their influence in attracting people to certain
occupations, as well as guiding organizations in their selection process (Judge & Kammeyer-
Mueller, 2007). As such, trait theories have been widely used as an organizational framework for
exploring a myriad of factors related to an individual’s vocational pursuits and outcomes,
including career exploration (Reed et al., 2004), job satisfaction (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002),
career success (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2007), and career indecisiveness (Chartrand, Rose,
Elliot, Marmarosh, & Caldwell, 1993).
The Five-Factor Model
The five-factor model (FFM) is one of the dominating trait-based theories of personality
that is frequently used in organizational research (Costa, 1996). The fundamental proposition of
the FFM is that there are five dimensions, known as the “Big Five,” (Goldberg, 1992) that
account for the most striking and basic individual differences in personality. In their extensive

4.
Personality
and
Career
Choice
4
research, Costa and McCrae (1992) contend that the Big Five dimensions are stable and
predictive of important behavioral and psychological outcomes. These five dimensions
consistent of Neuroticism (N), Extroversion (E), Openness to Experience (O), Agreeableness
(A), and Conscientiousness (C).
Neuroticism (N) explains the tendency to experience negative affect such as fear, anxiety,
insecurity, sadness, and anger-hostility. Individuals who are high on the dimension of (N) are
prone to self-deprecating cognitions, impulsive behaviors, and poor coping mechanisms when
experiencing stress. Extroversion (E) describes the tendency to be sociable, assertive, talkative,
and active. Individuals high on this dimension experience positive affect and report high energy
and zeal. They are sociable and stimulated by interpersonal interactions, and are described by
others as cheerful, energetic, and optimistic. Openness to experience (O) represents the
appreciation of experience for its own sake. Individuals high in (O) are described as
intellectually curious, original, creative, self-aware, and attentive to their inner feelings. They are
also described as imaginative, nonconforming, unconventional and autonomous, and possess a
breadth of interests and wide range of values. Agreeableness (A) describes the tendency to be
altruistic, sympathetic, and trusting towards others. Individuals who score high on the (A)
dimension are described as trusting, compliant, caring and gentle, and are generally motivated to
achieve interpersonal intimacy. Finally, conscientiousness (C) is characterized by the degree to
which one is oriented towards achievement and dependability. Individuals who score high in (C)
are described as being achievement-oriented, punctual, reliable, and organized. High (C)
individuals are also persistent in their goals and possess a high degree of self-control.
References/Empirical Evidence
The FFM and Vocational Pursuits

5.
Personality
and
Career
Choice
5
In their metanalysis, Barrick and Mount (1991) draw several conclusions about the
applicability of the FFM in predicting occupational outcomes, particularly job satisfaction. For
example, their results indicate that the dimension of (E) is a valid predictor of success in
occupations that require a high degree of social interaction, talkativeness, and assertiveness, such
as those in management and sales. Interestingly, they found that emotional stability (the inverse
of Neuroticism) was negatively correlated with success for professionals, suggesting that
individuals who are nervous, emotional, and high-strung perform better in these occupations.
Lastly, they found that (O) and (E) were positively related to individuals’ performance in
training programs.
In a related study, Tokar and Swanson (1995) found that the dimension of (E) was
positively related to social and enterprising occupations, while the dimension of O positively
correlated with investigative, artistic, and social ones. Because of the creative and imaginative
qualities of the (O) dimension, Costa and McCrae (1992) contend that individuals high in this
dimension will be more successful when engaging in abstract, introspective tasks that are
intellectually stimulating and imaginative in nature, rather than those that involve mundane, fact-
finding ones. Lastly, the studies collectively suggest that scoring high on the dimension of (C)
propels individuals towards more success in their careers overall (Barrick and Mount, 1991).
The FFM and Career Fit
For the purpose of clarity and concision, this paper will cover career fit as it relates to the
FFM in the following broad occupational areas: management, entrepreneurship, social/nonprofit,
public sector, and science/research/engineering. Managing or executing tasks involve a high
degree of social interaction and demand the adaptability and flexibility necessary to accomplish
multiple tasks in an effective and efficient manner. Therefore, individuals in this occupation tend

6.
Personality
and
Career
Choice
6
to score higher on the (E) dimension and at least moderately high on (A) (Barrick and Mount,
1991).
Entrepreneurship demands the ability to start new projects and effectively adapt to
change. Individuals pursuing entrepreneurship must be able to cope with stress when undertaking
risky endeavors, and they must exercise conscious and careful planning (Barrick & Mount,
1991). Individuals who score high on the dimensions of (O) and (C) tend to be more successful
in taking initiative and risk, and are more managed in their actions; those who score high on the
(N) dimension may not be as adept in coping with situations that demand instantaneous reactions
under stressful situations (Zhao & Seibert, 2006).
Within the social/nonprofit sectors, the domain of (A) will help individuals accommodate
the needs of others while low (N) will hamper their emotions and concern for others (Cattell &
Mead, 2008). High (N) is not beneficial either, as these individuals will be less likely to control
their own emotions when helping others in critical moments (Barrick & Mount, 1991).
Occupations within the public sector demand a high degree of self-discipline, punctuality,
and practicality. Individuals scoring high on the (C) domain will be most successful in these
professions (Cattell & Mead, 2008), as they will be able to execute tasks in a timely and
organized manner. There is some evidence to suggest that individuals within the public sector are
also likely to be calm, relaxed, and emotionally stable (Barrick & Mount, 1991).
Lastly, individuals pursuing occupations in science, research, or engineering must be able
to handle complex problems and obstacles with sensitivity and flexibility in their thinking
(Cattell & Mead, 2008). Individuals who are high on the dimension of (E) tend to be less
sensitive to their environments, while those high on the dimension of (O) will be more keen to
exploring new ideas and theories.

7.
Personality
and
Career
Choice
7
Analysis and Application of Theory and Research to Applied Settings
Personality assessment has been gaining popularity in organizational settings and may be
one method of evaluating performance and promoting effectiveness in the workplace (Lee,
Johnston, & Dougherty, 2000). Using the FFM as a tool can benefit both individuals and
organizations across various organizational contexts. For example, organizations may use
applicants’ scores on the five factors for the purpose of employee staffing, which would allow
employers and HR professionals to make better hiring decisions during their selection process
(Mount & Barrick, 1995). Relatedly, the dimensions could be predictive of work performance,
with the dimension of emotional stability, agreeableness, and conscientiousness collectively
comprising a “functional work personality” (Mount & Barrick, 1995).
The FFM can also be beneficial in assessing both training motivation as well as tailoring
the structure of training programs to meet individual needs. For example, the dimensions of (O),
emotional stability, and (E) have been found to be predictive of goal orientation and training
success (Barrick and Mount, 1991). Furthermore, individuals high on the dimension of (E) enjoy
the process of learning within environments where there is considerable social interaction,
whereas those low in (E) may perform better in one-on-one or self-paced learning (Barrick &
Mount, 1991). Similarly, those high on the dimension of (C) may prefer structured programs,
whereas those low in (C) may obtain better results in programs that provide more flexibility.
Lastly, the FFM may be used by organizations to identify which individuals are more
likely to feel comfortable and succeed in mentorship (Lee, Dougherty, & Turban, 2000) and
leadership (Chan, Uy, Chernyshenko, Ho, & Sam, 2015) roles. For example, effective mentors
and leaders are likely to be open to new ideas, possess a high degree of energy and zeal for
working closely with others, and reflect qualities that make them good role models, such as

8.
Personality
and
Career
Choice
8
organization, achievement orientation, and dependability. Therefore, those pursuing mentorship
and leadership roles should be high on the factor of (A) and should possess at least moderate
amounts of emotional stability, (O) and (C).
Limitations/Future Directions
While there seems to be some indication that an individual’s traits reflect their interests
and preferences to engage in particular career-related activities, the above concepts should be
interpreted with caution when applied to the organizational setting. One of the major limitations
in the literature is that the results drawn from each trait are not necessarily consistent. While each
trait represents a particular set of preferences, there is at least one weak or nonsignificant finding.
For example, while (C) and (E) were indicative of positive work values and job performance, the
domain of (A) and (O) consistently showed mixed results across multiple studies (Berings, De
Fruyt, & Bouwen, 2004; Barrick & Mount, 1991). There is clear evidence to suggest that the
predictive quality of a trait is weak by itself and should be interpreted using a collection of traits.
In their metanalysis, Barrick, Mount, and Gupta (2003) propose an interesting theoretical
framework with which to interpret this discrepancy. They suggest that the motivational processes
underlying the predictive qualities of certain traits may or may not be related to the degree to
which they are congruent with individuals’ preference for certain activities and the demands of
the job. Thus, an individual with a certain dominating trait (e.g. Extraversion) will be more
motivated to pursue a job that emphasizes congruent interests (e.g. social interaction). On the
contrary, individuals high in (C) and emotional stability are motivated through achievement-
oriented processes (e.g. goal-setting) rather than contingent work-related preferences. These
results suggest that individuals who are high in (C) and emotional stability will be motivated to
pursue different types of work environments, while the predictive influence of other traits such

9.
Personality
and
Career
Choice
9
as (E), (A), and (O) depend more on specific factors that are contingent upon the person’s
interests. The relationship between personality and vocational interest, therefore, is more
complex and warrants a more thorough breakdown and analysis.
Another limitation to consider is the cross-sectional and correlation nature of the study
designs, which introduce the potential for errors in internal validity. Organizations should
therefore take precaution not to mistakenly over interpret the results by assuming that personality
traits have a causal influence on career outcomes. Lastly, the use of personality tests like the
FFM still remains controversial in organizations, partially because these tests were not designed
as hiring tools. Organizations should therefore be careful when administering these tests to future
employees.
In order to address at least some of these limitations, future research should examine how
traits are integrated with and influenced by environmental factors. In particular, future studies
should take into account the influence of moderating variables on the relationship between traits
and career choice. Individuals’ vocational pursuits cannot be fully represented by their
personality traits; the moderating influence of culture, personal contacts within a particular
industry, compensation, personal capabilities, opportunities, family status, unemployment rates,
etc., should undoubtedly be taken into consideration as well. Future studies should also extend
this research to include cross-cultural studies and compare trait influences on career choice
across different cultural settings.
Conclusion
While the FFM cannot account for all of the ways that individuals differ in their
personality, its long-standing history, cross-cultural relevance, and empirical validation renders it
a robust and meaningful framework for understanding at least the basic relationship between

10.
Personality
and
Career
Choice
10
traits and career-related outcomes. The underlying assumption is that people will be happier,
more motivated, more fulfilled, and therefore more successful in careers that reflect their interest
and values. The idea goes back to Holland (1997) who suggested that people seek out careers
that are congruent with their personalities. This theory is supported by findings from research on
job satisfaction and career success, which suggest that employees are likely to feel more satisfied
with their jobs and less likely to drop out if their personality traits match with their work
environment (Silva, 2006).
Expanding research in this area may enable organizations to be more effective in the
career development experiences they provide for their employees, which can lead to beneficial
functioning of the organization overall. The scores may also give organizations insight into
which occupational positions may be more appropriate for certain applicants. Most importantly,
it can help individuals gain a better understanding of their vocational choice processes and
enable them to make more meaningful and informed career decision-making. Such decisions can
contribute to a better match between individuals and their work environment, leading to more
productive vocational outcomes for both individuals and organizations.

11.
Personality
and
Career
Choice
11
References
Barrick, M.R. & Mount, M.K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance:
A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1, 1-26.
Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K., & Gupta, R. (2003). Meta-analysis of the relationship between the
five-factor model of personality and Holland’s occupational types. Personnel
Psychology, 56, 45-74.
Berings, D., De Fruyt, F. & Bouwen, R. (2004). Work values and personality traits as predictors
of enterprising and social vocational interests. Personality and Individual Differences, 36,
349-364.
Boudreau, J.W., Boswell, W.R., Judge, T.A., & Bretz, Jr., R.D. (2001) Personality and cognitive
ability as predictors of job search among employed managers. Personnel Psychology,
54(1), 25-50.
Catttell, H.E.P. & Mead, A.D. (2008). The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). In
G.J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D.H. Saklofske (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Personality
Theory and Assessment: Vol. 2, Personality Measurement and Testing., Los Angeles,
CA: Sage Publications.
Chan, K., Uy M.A., Chernyshenko, O.S., Ho, R.M. & Sam, Y. (2015). Personality and
entrepreneurial, professional and leadership motivations. Personality and Individual
Differences, 77, 161-166.
Chartrand, J.M., Rose, M.L., Elliott, T.R., Marmarosh, C., & Caldwell, S. (1993). Peeling back
the onion: Personality, problem solving, and career decision-making style correlates of
career indecision. Journal of Career Assessment, 1(1), 66-82.
Costa, P.T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Professional Manual: Revised NEO Personality

12.
Personality
and
Career
Choice
12
Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P.T. (1996). Work and personality: Use of the NEO-PI-R in Industrial/Organisational
Psychology. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 45(3), 225-241.
Goldberg, L.R. (1992). The development markers for the Big-Five factor structure.
Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26-42.
Holland, J.L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work
Environments, third ed. Psychological Assessment Resources, Florida.
Judge, T.A., Heller, D., & Mount, M.K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job
satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530-541.
Judge, T.A. & Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D. (2007). “Personality and career success” in Gunz, H.P.
and Peiperl, M.A. (Eds), Handbook of Career Studies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Lee, F.K., Johnston, J.A., & Dougherty, T.W. (2000). Using the five-factor model of personality
to enhance career development and organizational functioning in the workplace. Journal
of Career Assessment, 8(4), 419-427.
Lee, F.K., Dougherty, T.W., & Turban, D.B. (2000). The role of personality and work values in
mentoring programs. Review of Business, 21(1/2), 33-27.
Mount, M.K. & Barrick, M.J. (1995). The big five personality dimensions: Implications for
research and practice in human resource management. Research in Personnel and Human
Resources Management, 13, 153-200.
Reed, M.B., Bruch, M.A., & Haase, R.F. (2004). Five-factor model of personality and career
exploration. Journal of Career Assessment, 12(3), 223-238.
Sagiv, L. (2002). Vocational interests and basic values. Journal of Career Assessment, 10, 233-

13.
Personality
and
Career
Choice
13
257.
Silva, .P. (2006). Effects of disposition on hospitality employee job satisfaction and
commitment. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18(4),
317-328.
Tokar, D. M., & Swanson, J. L. (1995). Evaluation of the correspondence between Holland’s
vocational personality typology and the five-factor model of personality. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 46, 89-108.
Zhao H, Scott ES (2006). The Big Five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A
meta-analytical review. Journal of Applied Psychology,91(2), 259-271.