The relationship between characteristics of extraversion, conscientiousness and versatility with job performance
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24200/jmas.vol2iss02pp26-30Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between conscientiousness and versatility characteristics and impact of these two traits with job performance province Kerman's Department of Education. Methodology: To perform this research evaluated extensive theoretical research in the field of personality and job performance. Results: Special relationship took based on scientific literature and who opinion of experts and all the hypotheses of this study are based on established, The population of the study consisted of a total staff of education s Kerman is 330 people. Data was collected using questionnaires and by using SPSS software were analyzed through descriptive and inferential. Conclusion: Results showed a significant relationship between conscientiousness and versatility and also there is positively and directly the relationship between personality traits variable and job performance.References
Asadi-Noghabi, A. 2005. Nursing (Mental Health 2). Tehran, Human, Fifth Edition.
Barrick, M. R., and Mount, M. K. 1991. The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1−26.
Barrick, M., Mitchell, T., & Stewart, G. 2003. Situational and motivational influences on trait–behavior relationships. In M. R. Barrick, and A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations (60−82). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Barrick, M., Mount, M., & Judge, T. 2001. Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9: 9–30.
Bowling, N., & Eschleman, K. 2010. Employee personality as a moderator of the relationships between work stressors and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15: 91−103.
Cervone, D. 2005. Personality architecture: Within-person structures and processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 56: 423–452.
Delaware, A. 2006. Research Methods in Psychology and Education. Tehran, publish, edit, print twenty-first.
Driskell, J., Hogan, R., & Salas, E. 1987. Personality and group performance. In C. Hendrick (Ed.). Group processes and intergroup relations: Review of personality and social psychology (9: 91–112). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Liao, H., Joshi, A., and Chuang, A. 2004. Sticking out like a sore thumb: Employee dissimilarity and deviance at work. Personnel Psychology, 57: 969−1000.
Robbins, R. 2002. Organization theory (architecture, design, and applications). Alvani Mehdi Hassan's translation of knowledge. Tehran, 32, Shayegan far treasure.
Roberts, B., Chernyshenko, S., Stark, S., & Goldberg, L. 2005. The structure of conscientiousness: An empirical investigation based on seven major personality questionnaires. Personnel Psycology, 58 (1): 40-103.
Salgado, F. 1997. The big five model of personality and job performance in the European community; journal of applied psychology, 85 (1(.
Schmidt, F., & Hunter, J. 1998. The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124: 262−274.
Vander-Walt. S. 2002. Meta-analysis of the relationship between personality measurement and job performance in South Africa; SIOPA conference; Pretoria.
