ProQuestDocuments 2016 03 21

_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Report Information from ProQuest

March 21 2016 12:07
_______________________________________________________________
Pentru detalii despre colectiile ProQuest: iulian.herciu@proquest.co.uk
21 March 2016 ProQuest

Table of contents
1. UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT OF PERSONALITY TRAITS ON INDIVIDUALS' TURNOVER

DECISIONS: A META-ANALYTIC PATH MODEL.......................................................................................... 1
Bibliography...................................................................................................................................................... 26
21 March 2016 ii ProQuest

Document 1 of 1
UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT OF PERSONALITY TRAITS ON INDIVIDUALS' TURNOVER

DECISIONS: A META-ANALYTIC PATH MODEL
Author: Zimmerman, Ryan D
ProQuest document link
Abstract: Historically, researchers have sought to identify environmental causes of employee turnover. This
paradigm has led to the underemphasis of individual differences as being an important cause of individuals'
turnover decisions. The results of the meta-analysis show that personality traits do have an impact on
individuals' turnover intentions and behaviors. The trait of Emotional Stability best predicted (negatively)
employees' intentions to quit, whereas the traits of Conscientiousness and Agreeableness best predicted
(negatively) actual turnover decisions. A theoretically developed path model showed important direct effects
from personality to intentions to quit and turnover behaviors that were not captured through job satisfaction or
job performance. These direct effects indicate that employees who are low on Emotional Stability may intend to
quit for reasons other than dissatisfaction with their jobs or not being able to perform their jobs well. The direct
effects on turnover suggest that individuals who are low on Agreeableness or high on Openness may engage in
unplanned quitting. Personality traits had stronger relationships with outcomes than did non-self-report
measures of job complexity/job characteristics. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
Full text: Headnote

Historically, researchers have sought to identify environmental causes of employee turnover. This paradigm has
led to the underemphasis of individual differences as being an important cause of individuals' turnover
decisions. The results of the meta-analysis show that personality traits do have an impact on individuals'
turnover intentions and behaviors. The trait of Emotional Stability best predicted (negatively) employees'
intentions to quit, whereas the traits of Conscientiousness and Agreeableness best predicted (negatively) actual
turnover decisions. A theoretically developed path model showed important direct effects from personality to
intentions to quit and turnover behaviors that were not captured through job satisfaction or job performance.
These direct effects indicate that employees who are low on Emotional Stability may intend to quit for reasons
other than dissatisfaction with their jobs or not being able to perform their jobs well. The direct effects on
turnover suggest that individuals who are low on Agreeableness or high on Openness may engage in
unplanned quitting. Personality traits had stronger relationships with outcomes than did non-self-report
measures of job complexity/job characteristics.
Employee turnover is a problem faced by all organizations. High turnover rates have been associated with
decreased customer satisfaction (Koys, 2001), productivity (Huselid, 1995), future revenue growth (Baron,
Hannan, &Burton, 2001), and profitability (Glebbeek &Bax, 2004). Because of this, turnover is an important
criterion that has been studied by organizational researchers for decades. In the past, practitioners and
academics have typically focused on controlling turnover by making changes to the work environment.
Researchers studied ways to increase current employees' levels of job satisfaction, as job satisfaction has been
shown to be an effective predictor of turnover (Griffeln, Horn, &Gaertner, 2000; Tett &Meyer, 1993). However,
Staw, Bell, and Clausen (1986) noted that prior research had emphasized situational factors, particularly
characteristics of the job, as the primary determinant of job satisfaction, with little regard to dispositional causes
of job attitudes.
Similarly, current turnover research has been dominated by the withdrawal model that emphasizes attitudinal
causes for employee turnover (Johns, 2002). Johns reviewed the literature and summarized that the main
problem with the withdrawal model is that "it connotes a single cause or motive to behaviors that are surely
complexly determined" (Johns, 2002, p. 232). In fact, Johns believes that not only is the "usefulness of the
21 March 2016 Page 1 of 26 ProQuest

withdrawal model exaggerated at the expense of other models," but also "turnover research particularly suffered
from the hegemony of [it]" (p. 233). Despite the obvious importance in retaining high-performing employees
after they are hired, researchers need to consider whether some individuals have a propensity to quit regardless
of having a work environment designed to increase their job satisfaction, whereas other employees may be
more likely to stay even under less-than-ideal circumstances.
Therefore, the first purpose is to estimate the true-score correlations between personality and intent to quit and
turnover. The second purpose is to test a model of turnover that will aid in understanding the processes by
which dispositions directly and indirectly affect employee turnover. The contribution of this study is to provide
insight into how attributes of the individual and the job affect job attitudes, job performance, and withdrawal
behaviors. As the primary emphasis of this study is to integrate dispositional traits into the established
withdrawal model of turnover, the following hypothesis-building focus on the personality-intent to quit and
personality-turnover relationships. Both the newly hypothesized and wellestablished relationships are presented
in the hypothesized dispositional model of turnover (Figure 1).
Previous Research on the Dispositional Causes of Turnover
Dispositions play an important role in most theoretical models of turnover. In March and Simon's (1958) model,
the researchers hypothesized that individual differences influence the perceived ease of movement to jobs
outside the current employer. Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, and Meglino (1979) predicted that numerous individual
differences, including personality and impulsivity, would affect turnover decisions. Similarly, in their 1981 model,
Steers and Mowday (1981) placed individual attributes and values as the earliest precursors to turnover. Finally,
Horn and Griffeth (1995) developed an integrative model of turnover that included negative affectivity and
commitment propensity as antecedents to work-related attitudes and turnover decisions.
Despite the presence of dispositional traits in most theoretical models of turnover, nearly all of the models that
have been empirically tested treat job satisfaction as an exogenous variable and do not include dispositions as
antecedents. This is in spite of the fact that dispositional influences on work-related attitudes (Staw et al., 1986;
Weitz, 1952) have been wellestablished with scores of studies meta-analytically summarized (Judge, Thoresen,
Bono, &Patton, 2001; Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky, de Chermont, &Warren, 2003). Although there have been
models tested that examine how low job satisfaction leads to turnover (Horn, Caranikas-Walker, Prussia,
&Griffeth, 1992) and how dispositions influence satisfaction (Judge et al., 2001; Thoresen et al., 2003), there
has been no published research based on meta-analytic estimates that tests an overall model of turnover that
includes dispositions, job satisfaction, intentions to quit, and turnover behaviors. In order to enhance our
understanding of the complex processes that lead to turnover, more complete models are needed.
Although research has shown that those individuals who have frequently changed jobs in the past are more
likely to do so in the future (Judge &Watanabe, 1995), causes for these "Hobo Syndrome" (Ghiselli, 1974)
behaviors are not clear. However, in developing their cognitive-affective personality system (CAPS) theory,
Mischel and Shoda (1995, 1998) suggest that personality affects behaviors due to their influence on the
individual's affective responses, goals, and values, beliefs regarding the consequences for behaviors,
interpretation of events and situations, and choice of response to situational factors. These components will be
used to help develop the dispositional hypotheses in this study.
Although there have been two meta-analyses (Barrick &Mount, 1991; Salgado, 2002) that have evaluated the
relationship between personality and turnover, both studies have limitations that prevent an accurate estimate of
the personality-turnover relationship from being known. Barrick and Mount (1991) found that personality had
weak relationships with turnover, with effect sizes ranging from .02 for Emotional Stability to .12 for
Conscientiousness. However, they examined an outcome called "turnover/tenure," which included both turnover
and concurrent tenure (i.e., the amount of time current employees had been with the organization so far in their
employment, as opposed to how long the employees had stayed with the organization at the time of their
departure), hence it is not a direct test of the relationship between personality and turnover. The meta-analysis

also neither contains data from studies from the last 18 years, nor does it correct for differences in turnover
rates between studies.
Salgado (2002) found much stronger relationships between personality and turnover, with operational validities
ranging from -.14 for Openness to -.35 for Emotional Stability. However, Salgado (2002) did not contain all
relevant studies, and therefore had a very low number of effect sizes (k = 4-5) and sample sizes (N = 554-748)
included in the meta-analyses. In addition, the study did not correct for unreliability in the predictor or
differences in turnover rates between studies. The disparity in the results between the Barrick and Mount (1991)
and Salgado (2002) meta-analyses, along with their respective weaknesses, warrants additional meta-analytic
review. Further, neither study examined how personality affected employees' intentions to quit, nor did they
include an overall model explaining how personality affects turnover decisions.
Besides the theoretical importance of understanding the relationships between dispositional traits and turnover,
there are also practical benefits to be obtained. Understanding how traits affect turnover is likely to lead to cost-
effective means of reducing turnover. In fact, at the end of several reviews of the turnover literature, researchers
often call for more research on methods to control turnover by focusing on applicants (as opposed to job
incumbents; Griffeth, Horn, &Gaertner, 2000; Horn &Griffeth, 1995; McEvoy &Cascio, 1985). Organizations can
screen applicants based on individual differences by using tests designed to assess personality or trait affect.
Because such tests are readily available for little or no cost, and these dispositional traits have also been shown
to predict job performance (Barrick &Mount, 1991; Barrick, Mount, &Judge, 2001; Hough, 1992; Hurtz
&Donovan, 2000; Salgado 1997, 1998, 2003), the utility of using prehire assessments that predict both
performance and turnover could be substantial.
Personality
Dispositional research has been dominated by two types of traits: personality and trait affect. In fact, both
personality and affect have also been dominated by their respective specific models. Personality research has
focused on the five-factor model (FFM) personality traits (Costa &McCrae, 1985). The FFM establishes five
factors of personality (Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, and Openness to
Experience) as a parsimonious model of distinguishing between differences among individuals' dispositions.
Affect, although originally a state-oriented construct equated with emotions and mood, later evolved as a
dispositional trait (Tellegen, 1985; Watson &Clark, 1984) with the two constructs of trait positive affect and trait
negative affect emerging. Because of the dominance of the FFM and trait affect models in the literature, these
two sets of traits are the focus of this research. Due to theoretical and empirical evidence that personality and
trait affect are strongly related with observed (i.e., not corrected for measurement error) correlations between
.63 and -.83 (Clark &Watson, 1999; Meyer &Shack, 1989), trait affect is combined with personality for purposes
of this study.
Conscientiousness
As discussed by Maertz and colleagues (Maertz &Campion, 2004; Maertz &Griffeth, 2004), Conscientiousness
likely influences the contractual and moral/ethical motivational forces that affect turnover. Maertz and Griffeth
suggested that individuals who consider leaving their employers may ask themselves, "Do I owe any obligation
to the organization that I would break by leaving?" For contractual forces, those higher in Conscientiousness
are more likely to believe these contractual obligations exist and are more likely to adhere to them. These
feelings of obligation may form from numerous factors, including fair treatment, fulfillment of promises, or
perceived organizational support (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, &Rhoades, 2001). Therefore, as long
as the employee adheres to the norms of reciprocity (Eisenberger et al., 2001), he or she is apt to stay in the
organization until the perceived debt is repaid (Settoon, Bennett, &Liden, 1996). For moral/ethical motivational
forces, highly conscientious individuals are more likely to believe they have a moral obligation to stay with an
organization. Specifically, Maertz and Griffeth (2004) suggested that individuals with religious or moral beliefs
such as the "protestant work ethic" believe that perseverance is good regardless of the circumstances (Blau

&Ryan, 1997; Niles, 1999) and that switching jobs indiscriminately is a sign of poor character.
Based on the unfolding model of turnover (Lee &Mitchell, 1994), some individuals are "impulsive quitters" who
quit their jobs spontaneously without considering the repercussions, searching for alternative employment
beforehand, or evaluating alternatives. Similarly, Ghiselli (1974) noted that some individuals are more likely to
develop habits of quitting job after job out of an innate sense of "wanderlust." Ghiselli termed this disposition as
the "Hobo Syndrome." These types of spontaneous decision makers are inconsistent with the planning and
impulse-control aspects of Conscientiousness, as employees who are less likely to be impulsive quitters may
hesitate to quit without a plan (Maertz &Campion, 2004). More broadly, Watson, Clark, and Harkness (1994)
noted that conscientious individuals are less likely to act on impulsive, spontaneous reactions, and instead
consider the longer-term ramifications of their actions.
Impulsivity has been found to negatively relate to Conscientiousness and Agreeableness (Clark &Watson, 1999;
Eysenck, 1997) with impulsive quitting a key component in several models of turnover. As outlined in their
model of linkages between personality and counterproductive work behaviors, Cullen and Sackett (2003)
believe that personality plays a direct role in such behaviors due to impulsive actions.
Hypothesis 1: Conscientiousness will be negatively related to (a) intent to quit and (b) turnover.
Extraversion and Trait Positive Affect
Individuals higher in Extraversion and trait positive affect tend to experience positive emotions more frequently
than those lower in these traits (Clark &Watson, 1999; Watson &Clark, 1992, 1997). In addition, they tend to
perceive themselves and their surroundings more positively and are more likely to recall positive information
than negative about their work environments (Brief, Butcher, &Roberson, 1995; Brief &Weiss, 2002; Watson
&Slack, 1993; Weiss &Cropanzano, 1996). As job attitudes are largely considered affective in nature (Meyer
&Allen, 1991; Thoresen et al., 2003), both traits likely play a role in increasing individuals' job satisfaction. In
their discussion of the affective motivational forces influencing voluntary turnover, Maertz and Griffeth (2004)
note that those employees who feel better about their work environments are more motivated to stay at their
organizations (Meyer &Allen, 1991).
The sociability aspect of Extraversion can be linked to the concepts of job embeddedness (Mitchell, Holtom,
Lee, Sablynski, &Erez, 2001) and socialization (Berlew &Hall, 1966). Mitchell and colleagues defined job
embeddedness as reflecting links to others in the organization, perceptions of person-job fit, and losses that
would occur if the employee was to leave the job. They connect job embeddedness to the perceived ease of
movement component of March and Simon's 1958 model by suggesting that the greater the number of links an
employee has to others in the organization, the lower the perceived ease of movement to other organizations.
As individuals higher in Extraversion are more likely to seek out social relationships, they are more likely to have
a greater number of links to others within their organizations (McCrae &Costa, 1997). Because of this,
extraverts are also more likely to become quickly socialized into their organization and, due to acculturation
(Louis, 1980) and social integration (Louis, Posner, &Powell, 1983), would be less likely to quit (Maertz
&Campion, 2004; O'Reilly, Caldwell, &Barnett, 1989).
Although the preponderance of the theoretical evidence suggests that extraverts are more likely to stay at their
organizations, there is some evidence to suggest the reverse would be true. Specifically, because of the
sociability aspects of Extraversion, those higher in the trait are more likely to establish and maintain a network
of contacts at other organizations. Wanberg, Kanfer, and Banas (2000) found that those higher in Extraversion
were more comfortable with networking (r = .31) and had higher levels of networking intensity (defined as the
scope and frequency of using networking behaviors) (r = .34).
Because of this, those higher in Extraversion are also more likely to perceive a larger number of alternate
employment opportunities (March &Simon, 1958). However, the majority of the theoretical evidence suggests
that extraverts would be more likely to stay at their organizations.
Hypothesis 2: Extraversion will be negatively related to (a) intent to quit and (b) turnover.

Emotional Stability and Trait Negative Affect
As theorized with Extraversion and trait positive affect, because job attitudes are considered affective in nature,
low Emotional Stability and high trait negative affect likely negatively impact individuals' job satisfaction.
Individuals low in Emotional Stability and high in trait negative affect are more likely to encode and recall
negative information (Watson &Clark, 1984; Weiss &Cropanzano, 1996) and tend to have negative perceptions
of themselves and their environment (Burke, Brief, &George, 1993; Watson, Clark, &Tellegen, 1988). In
discussing the affective motivational forces influencing turnover, Maertz and Griffeth (2004) note that those
employees who have negative views of their work environments are more likely to leave.
The insecurity aspects of those lower in Emotional Stability should also cause them to be more likely to quit,
especially early in their job tenure. This is because of the stress new employees endure in having to learn and
perform new job responsibilities, as well as having to become socialized into a new work environment. During
this early stage, job demands are novel, ill defined, and uncertain. Those lower in Emotional Stability tend to be
unsure about their ability to perform the job (Judge &Hies, 2002), particularly when learning the demands of a
new job, and this may cause them to be prone to abandon such positions early in their tenure. Further empirical
evidence supports these arguments as low levels of Emotional Stability have been linked to giving up on stress-
inducing goals (Judge &Hies, 2002; Watson &Hubbard, 1996) and career indecision (Tokar, Fischer, &Subich,
1998).
As discussed with Extraversion, when applicants begin new jobs, socialization has been shown to have a
disproportionately large effect on turnover (Berlew &Hall, 1966). Because emotionally unstable individuals tend
to experience negative moods more frequently, and tend to have higher conflict with coworkers (Organ, 1994),
they are less likely to become effectively socialized into their organizations. Cote (2005) theorized that
individuals exhibiting negative emotions, such as sadness and anger, are less likely to receive social support
from coworkers and more likely to experience interpersonal conflict, thereby increasing their stress levels and
increasing their intentions to quit (Spector &Jex, 1998).
Hypothesis 3: Emotional Stability will be negatively related to (a) intent to quit and (b) turnover.
Agreeableness
There are several reasons to believe that agreeable individuals will be less likely to engage in withdrawal
behaviors. First, because of their adaptability and compliance, agreeable people are likely to be more
understanding of negative aspects of their environment. In addition, because of the tendency to establish
positive and satisfying relationships with people within their organizations (Organ &Lingl, 1995), they are apt to
think more highly of their work environments. These positive relationships will increase the strength of the
affective forces (Maertz &Griffeth, 2004) that motivate individuals to stay at their jobs (Meyer &Allen, 1991).
Second, due to the interpersonal aspects of Agreeableness (warmth, caring, likeability), agreeable individuals
are more likely to have successful relationships with others (McCrae &Costa, 1991; Organ &Lingl, 1995). As
with extraverts, agreeable people likely have stronger ties to coworkers. These relationships are linked to
constituent motivational forces (Maertz &Griffeth, 2004) and the concept of job embeddedness (Mitchell et al.,
2001), which motivate individuals to stay with their organizations because of these interpersonal relationships.
Third, the compliance and dependence aspects of Agreeableness are likely to cause employees high in
Agreeableness to perceive contractual obligations to stay with the organization (Maertz &Griffeth, 2004). Finally,
the negative side of Agreeableness has been found to be a component of acting impulsively (Clark &Watson,
1999; Eysenck, 1997) and engage in spontaneous quitting (Lee &Mitchell, 1994; Mobley et al., 1979).
Hypothesis 4: Agreeableness will be negatively related to (a) intent to quit and (b) turnover.
Openness to Experience
In discussing the moral/ethical motivational forces influencing voluntary turnover decisions, Maertz and Griffeth
(2004) suggest that those high in Openness to Experience would value changing jobs and would therefore be
more apt to leave an organization. As with Conscientiousness and its hypothesized relationship with unplanned

quitting, Openness also has links to turnover, including wanderlust, and the Hobo Syndrome (Ghiselli, 1974).
However, unlike those low in Conscientiousness who may be engaging in these behaviors from a negative
perspective (i.e., due to low dependability or not feeling a sense of obligation), those high in Openness may
approach it from a positive perspective (i.e., personal growth, becoming more experienced, etc.). Therefore,
individuals higher in Openness are more likely to leave the organization to explore other opportunities,
regardless of how they feel about their job.
Hypothesis 5: Openness will be positively related to (a) intent to quit and (b) turnover.
Job Complexity
In their model of personality and counterproductive work behaviors, Cullen and Sackett (2003) include
personality and organizational factors as the two antecedents to work attitudes and counterproductive
behaviors. Perhaps the most studied organizational factors related to work attitudes, performance, and
withdrawal behaviors are characteristics of the job. Based on Maslow's (1954) theory of individual needs,
attempts have been made to "enrich" jobs in order to make them more motivating. Certainly the most widely
known and studied theory of job enrichment is represented by the job characteristics model (JCM; Hackman
&Lawler, 1971; Hackman &Oldham, 1976). However, in their 2003 review and integration of the work design
literature, Morgeson and Campion suggested that job complexity subsumes not only the components of the
JCM, but also other aspects of work, such as mental demands, job control, specialization, and responsibility.
This higher-level construct of job complexity has also been discussed by Judge (2000) and meta-analyzed by
Griffeth and colleagues (2000), with the latter finding a true-score correlation between job scope and turnover of
-.14.
Meta-analyses of the relationships between the JCM and work-related outcomes show a large relationship with
overall job satisfaction (ρ = .74, Fried &Ferris, 1987) and a moderate relationship with job performance (ρ = .27,
Fried &Ferris, 1987). However, as noted by Staw et al. (1986), most of the studies involving the JCM use self-
report measures of job characteristics, which overestimate the strength of the relationship because of reciprocal
effects between self-reports of the two constructs (Click, Jenkins, &Gupta, 1986; Morgeson &Campion, 2003;
Spector, 1992; Wong, Hui, &Law, 1998), in addition to being affected by common method variance (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Lee, &Podsakoff, 2003). When job complexity is reported by others, its relationship with job
satisfaction is still positive but much smaller (r = .16, Glick et al., 1986; r = .07; Spector &Jex, 1991). Therefore,
only studies using non-self-reports of job complexity will be used in meta-analytic estimates of its relationships
with other variables.
Hypothesis 6: Job complexity will be positively related to (a) job satisfaction and (b) performance.
Job Satisfaction
Based on Fishbein and Ajzen's (1975) model and Mobley's (1977) model, job satisfaction does not directly
affect turnover. Instead, job attitudes affect intentions to quit, which in turn leads to turnover. As job satisfaction
is defined as the affective attachment to one's job (Tett &Meyer, 1993), those employees who feel more
positively about their jobs are less likely to intend to leave their positions. Conversely, if employees have
negative attitudes about their work situation, they will seek to avoid the situation in order to alleviate those
negative feelings (Hulin, Roznowski, &Hachiya, 1985). Therefore, if employees have low job satisfaction, they
are more likely to intend to remove themselves from the work environment.
Two meta-analyses have found a strong negative relationship between job satisfaction and intent to quit. Horn
et al. (1992) found an overall effect size of -.49 and Tett and Meyer (1993) found a slightly stronger negative
relationship of -.58. Not surprisingly, because of the indirect effect through intent to quit (Tett &Meyer, 1993),
satisfaction has been found to have a weaker relationship with turnover itself. Meta-analyses have shown
negative relationships between satisfaction and turnover of -.22 (Griffeth et al., 2000) and -.25 (Tett &Meyer,
1993).
Job Performance

Job performance also plays an important role in the withdrawal process. Job performance is likely to have
indirect effects on turnover through job satisfaction and intent to quit, in addition to a direct effect on turnover.
The impact of job performance on job satisfaction is grounded in expectancy theory. Expectancy theory would
imply that high performance leads to greater rewards (both extrinsic and intrinsic), which in turn increases job
satisfaction (Lawler &Porter, 1967). This relationship has been empirically shown by numerous studies,
including a recent meta-analysis (p = .30, Judge et al., 2001).
Job performance is also likely to impact turnover through intentions to quit, as well as have direct effects on
turnover through unplanned quitting. Based on Lee and Mitchell's (1994) unfolding model of turnover,
employees may experience "shocks" at work that cause them to deliberately think about quitting. Specifically,
Alien and Griffeth (1999) note that such shocks could manifest themselves in employees receiving negative
feedback during their performance appraisals, which could lead to intentions to quit or immediate quitting.
Further, based on expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964), negative performance appraisals may signal to employees
that they are unlikely to receive valued outcomes from the organization (e.g., pay raises or promotions), which
may lead them to cogitate about whether or not to leave their organizations. Finally, as noted by Horn and
Griffeth (1995), in order to allow poor-performing employees to "save face" or to avoid negative consequences
of terminating employees (e.g., lawsuits or unemployment compensation), organizations sometimes
"encourage" such employees to quit, rather than firing them. This circumstance would yield a direct impact on
turnover decisions.
The negative relationship between job performance and turnover has been demonstrated in numerous primary
studies, with a meta-analysis summarizing these results (ρ = -.17, Griffeth et al., 2000). In addition, previous
meta-analytic evidence shows a negative relationship between job performance and intent to quit of -.14
(Darnold &Zimmerman, 2006; Zimmerman &Darnold, in press).
Intent to Quit
In reviewing the turnover and absenteeism literature, Porter and Steers (1973) suggested that a greater
emphasis should be placed on understanding the withdrawal process. Specifically, they hypothesized that
"intent to leave" is a likely mediator to the attitude-behavior relationship and represents the last step prior to
quitting. In 1975, Fishbein and Ajzen provided a theoretical basis for focusing on behavioral intentions. Their
theory of attitudes postulates, "The best single predictor on an individual's behavior will be a measure of his
intention to perform that behavior" (p. 369). Finally, in 1977 Mobley outlined a model of the intermediate
linkages between job satisfaction and turnover, including intent to quit. Since these early works on the
importance of including behavioral intentions in models of turnover, research examining employees' intent to
quit has flourished. A meta-analysis examining intent to quit and turnover has shown a strong relationship
between the two constructs (p = .45, Griffeth et al., 2000).
Method
In order to test the proposed model of turnover, three steps were necessary. First, a thorough search for
existing meta-analyses was done. Second, for those relationships for which meta-analyses were not already
available, new meta-analyses were conducted as part of this study. Finally, a comprehensive model of turnover
was tested.
Prior Meta-Analyses
To identify prior meta-analyses, several social science databases were searched using relevant key words (as
well as numerous variations), including: meta-analysis, personality, core self-evaluation, positive affect, negative
affect, job characteristics model, job scope, job complexity, turnover, intent to quit, job satisfaction, and
performance. When more than one meta-analysis existed for a given relationship, the estimate from the meta-
analysis with the largest number of studies included was used. A list of the meta-analyses used in this study is
included in Table 1, as well as a list of those relationships requiring meta-analyses to be conducted in order to
test the theoretical model proposed in this study.

New Meta-Analyses Conducted
Data collection. To identify studies for inclusion in the meta-analyses, several databases and conference
programs were searched using the key words listed previously. Specifically, the American Psychological
Association's PsycINFO (1887-2006) and Dissertation Abstracts International (1861-2006) databases were
searched for relevant studies. To obtain unpublished research, conference programs from the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology (1995-2006) and Academy of Management (1994-2006) were also
searched. The search yielded 86 codable studies, producing 246 unique effect sizes. Sixty-one of the studies
were published in journals, 23 of the studies were from dissertations, and two of the studies were from
unpublished sources. All studies used in the meta-analyses are included in the references and indicated by an
asterisk.
Data coding. The characteristics of the 86 empirical studies were coded on multiple dimensions, including the
sample size, the names of the independent and dependent variables, the observed effect size, the reliability of
each variable, and the turnover rate of the sample. In order to ensure the accuracy of the data coding, two
people coded all of the studies. The agreement between the two coders was 97%. Any disagreements were
resolved through discussion. To ensure that the assumption of independent samples was not violated (Hunter
&Schmidt, 2004), no more than one effect size per relationship from a study was included in each meta-
analysis. If there were multiple effect sizes for a given relationship from a single study then an average of these
unique effect sizes was used in the overall analysis.
To facilitate the use of a parsimonious model of individual differences, the FFM was used for personality. For
those studies that used traits not directly from the FFM model, two people coded each trait into one of the FFM
categories or into a sixth "other" category. To facilitate the coding process, the coding schemes used by Barrick
and Mount (1991) and Salgado (2003) were referred to throughout the process. If the coders disagreed with
each other or with the prior coding schemes, the disagreements were resolved through discussion. The
classification of non-FFM personality traits into FFM categories is presented in the Appendix.
Meta-analytic procedures. The meta-analyses were conducted using the formulas from Hunter and Schmidt
(2004) with the aid of the metaanalytic software program developed by Schmidt and Le (2004). In this study, the
meta-analytic estimates for intent to quit and job complexity were corrected for artifactual variance due to
sampling error, and attenuation due to measurement error in the predictor and the criterion. For metaanalyses
that include turnover as the criterion, corrections were made for unreliability in the predictor and for unequal
sample sizes in those who had left and who had stayed at an organization (i.e., when there was not a 50-50
split between leavers and stayers). The latter correction was made because a disproportionate number of
stayers and leavers will cause the true-score correlation to be underestimated and may give a false indication of
the existence of a moderator to the relationship of interest (Hunter &Schmidt, 2004). The actual turnover rate
was used if it was provided in the study, otherwise the mean turnover rate across studies (39%) was used.
Because of potential interest in using trait-based assessments to select applicants who are less likely to quit
their jobs, operational validities for the relationships between personality traits and turnover were also computed
(in addition to the true-score correlations) by not correcting for unreliability in the predictor. This was done
because during the selection process organizations must utilize applicants' observed scores on prehire
assessments (i.e., scores not corrected for measurement error; Schmidt &Lee, 2004). Corrections for range
restriction were also made in the population estimates for the operational validities. Two studies by Salgado
(2002, 2003) provide range-restriction estimates for each FFM trait. For this study, the average of these two
sets of range-restriction estimates was used (i.e., Es: .785; Ex: .82; O: .84; A: .82; C: .815).
Because reliability data were not available in each study, measurement error was corrected using artifact
distributions (Hunter &Schmidt, 2004). The artifact distributions used in this study are presented in Table 2.
Also, as none of the studies reported the inter-rater reliability of job performance, the inter-rater reliability
estimate of .52 (Viswesvaran, Ones, &Schmidt, 1996) was used to correct for the unreliability of job

performance in the job complexity-job performance meta-analysis.
The 80% credibility intervals reported for each meta-analysis indicate the generalizability of the relationship
across situations (Hunter &Schmidt, 2004). If the credibility interval does not include zero, the relationship is
considered to exist across situations, although the magnitude of the relationship may still vary if there is still
considerable variance unaccounted for by artifacts. Finally, 95% confidence intervals around the true-score
correlation are reported as an indicator of the variability of the estimate of the mean true-score correlation and
whether the mean true-score correlation is nonzero.
Path Analysis
Although correlational data from a primary study is typically used to conduct a path analysis, data from meta-
analyses can also be used (Hunter &Schmidt, 2004; Viswesvaran &Ones, 1995). The models were tested using
LISREL 8.71 (Joreskog &Sorbom, 2004). Several fit indices are provided to evaluate the fit of the model to the
data, including the chi-squared index (?2), the comparative fit index (CFI), the root-meansquare-residual
(RMSR), the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), and the rootmean-square error of approximation (RMSEA).
Results
Meta-Analytic Estimates
Tables 3-5 contain the results of the meta-analyses. The tables include the relationship examined; the number
of effect sizes (k) and total sample size (N) included in the meta-analysis; followed by the sample size weighted
mean observed correlation. Tables 3 and 5 include the estimated mean true-score correlation corrected for
unreliability in the predictor and criterion. Table 4 presents the estimated mean operational validity (ρ^sub 1^)
corrected for range restriction and for deviations from a turnover base rate of 50% (i.e., an unequal number of
stayers/leavers), as well as the estimated mean true-score correlation (ρ^sub 2^) corrected for unreliability in
the predictor and for deviations from a turnover base rate of 50%. Following these estimates, each table
presents the 95% confidence interval around the estimated mean true-score correlation; the standard deviation
(SDρ) of the estimated mean true-score correlation; and the 80% credibility interval around the estimated mean
true-score correlation. Finally, the percentage of variance accounted for by statistical artifacts is contained in the
last column.
Personality-intent to quit meta-analytic estimates. As shown in Table 3, the first set of meta-analyses includes
the correlations between the FFM traits and intent to quit. Emotional Stability has the strongest correlation with
intent to quit (-.29), followed by Conscientiousness (-.16), and Extraversion (-.12). These results support the
hypotheses that Emotional Stability and Conscientiousness have negative relationships with intent to quit
(Hypotheses 3a, 1a, and 2a, respectively). The credibility interval for each of these three traits does not include
zero (Emotional Stability: -.42 to -.15; Conscientiousness: -.24 to -.08; Extraversion: -.23 to -.01), indicating that
the relationship is generalizable across situations.
Agreeableness and Openness to Experience have weaker relationships with intent to quit, at -.13 and .01,
respectively. These results support the hypothesis that Agreeableness has a negative relationship with intent to
quit (Hypothesis 4a). However, the confidence interval for Openness included zero, and thus failed to support
Hypothesis 5a. The credibility intervals of both of these traits include zero (Agreeableness: -.27 to.01;
Openness: -.15 to. 17), which indicates that the relationships may not generalize across all situations. A
composite of all five personality traits has a true-score correlation of -.33 with intent to quit.
When Emotional Stability and trait negative affect are analyzed separately, the true-score correlation for
Emotional Stability (-.23) is weaker than that of trait negative affect (.31). Similarly, when Extraversion and trait
positive affect are analyzed separately, the true-score correlation for Extraversion (-.09) is weaker than that of
trait positive affect (-.18). The average percentage of variance accounted for by artifacts is also higher for the
moderator analyses. Therefore, how each construct is measured acts as a moderator to the overall relationship.
The confidence intervals for each of the estimates of the mean truescore correlations does not include zero,

with the exception of Openness to Experience. This indicates that the mean true-score correlation is likely to be
nonzero for the trait-intent to quit relationships. The percentage of variance explained by artifacts for each of the
FFM traits is fairly low, ranging between approximately 24% and 54%, indicating the potential presence of
additional moderators.
Personality-turnover meta-analytic estimates. The meta-analyses for personality and turnover are shown in
Table 4. Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Openness have the strongest
relationships with turnover at -.25, -.20, -.18, and .10, respectively. These results support the hypotheses that
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability have negative relationships with turnover
(Hypotheses 4b, Ib, and 3b). The results also support the hypothesis that Openness has a positive relationship
with turnover (Hypothesis 5b). Extraversion was found to have a true-score correlation of-.04 with turnover, but
the confidence interval included zero. Therefore, Hypothesis 2b was not supported. A composite of all five
personality traits has a true-score correlation of -.32 with turnover. The operational validities of the five traits are
somewhat higher compared to the true-score correlations for Agreeableness (-.27), Conscientiousness (-.22),
Emotional Stability (-.20), and the overall FFM composite (-.35).
The confidence intervals around each of the trait-turnover relationships, with the exception of Extraversion, do
not include zero. The credibility intervals for four of the FFM traits does not include zero (Emotional Stability: -
.18 to -.18; Openness: .01 to.19; Agreeableness: -.38 to -.11; Conscientiousness: -.22 to -.19), which indicates
the broad generalizability of the relationship, whereas the interval for Extraversion does include zero (-10 to
.03). Further, the percentages of variance accounted for by statistical artifacts for four of the five traits are
greater than 70%. These findings indicate that for Emotional Stability, Extraversion, Openness, and
Conscientiousness the strength of the relationships with turnover are unlikely to vary across situations.
However, the variance accounted for by artifacts for Agreeableness was 50%, which indicates that moderators
may exist in the Agreeableness-turnover relationship.
Job complexity meta-analytic estimates. Table 5 presents the metaanalytic results for the relationships with non-
self-report measures of job complexity. The relationships between non-self-reports of job complexity and
personality traits are very weak, with true-score correlations between -.07 (Agreeableness) and .12
(Extraversion). None of the 80% credibility intervals include zero. The percentages of variance accounted for by
artifacts range from 57% to 100%.
The next row in Table 5 shows the relationship between job complexity and intent to quit. The true-score
correlation is -.08, with a credibility interval that does not include zero (-.13 to -.04). The following row in Table 5
presents the relationship between job complexity and job performance. The true-score correlation is .11, with
the confidence interval that barely included zero (-.01 to.23) and therefore Hypothesis 6b was not supported.
The final set of meta-analyses presented is for the relationship between job complexity and job satisfaction. In
the overall analysis, the estimate of the true-score correlation is .19 with a credibility interval from .13 to .26
(41.29% of the variance accounted for by artifacts). This finding supports the hypothesis that non-self-report
measures of job complexity have a positive relationship with job satisfaction (Hypothesis 6a).
Moderator analyses were conducted based on how job complexity was rated: either through coding based on
objective ratings (e.g., the Dictionary of Occupational Titles [DOT]) or through observer ratings. For objective
coding of complexity, the true-score correlation is .18 with 100% of the variance accounted for by artifacts. For
observer ratings of job complexity, the meta-analytic estimate is .28 with a credibility interval from .11 to .45
(26.93% of the variance was accounted for by artifacts). None of the 95% confidence intervals for the job
complexity-intent to quit and job complexity-job satisfaction relationships include zero.
Path Analysis
Table 6 shows the meta-analytic matrix used in the path analyses. All meta-analytic estimates of the
intercorrelations between FFM traits are from Mount, Barrick, Scullen, and Rounds (2005). The harmonic mean
of the meta-analytic sample sizes (4,383) was used in the analyses. The results of the path analyses are shown

in Figure 2. The fit statistics for the hypothesized model are as follows: χ^sup 2^: 281.54, with 7 df; RMSR: .026;
RMSEA: .095; GFI: .99; CFI: .97. Due to the use of a meta-analytic correlation matrix in the path analyses and
the limitations of using the χ^sup 2^ and its transformations as indicators of model fit, the RMSR is the most
robust indicator of the fit of the model (Bollen, 1989). An RMSR of .026 indicates the model has good fit with the
data (Bollen, 1989; Hu &Bentler, 1995). Figure 2 shows the path coefficients for the turnover model with a 95%
confidence interval for each coefficient of ±.04. The direct effects on intent to quit are .06 for Conscientiousness,
.03 for Extraversion, -. 18 for Emotional Stability, .00 for Agreeableness, and .03 for Openness. The direct
effects on turnover are -.07 for Conscientiousness, .02 for Extraversion, .05 for Emotional Stability, - .20 for
Agreeableness, and. 12 for Openness.
Analysis of the residuals indicates that four missing paths are largely responsible for lowering the fit between
the data and the hypothesized model. The two largest residuals (-.11 and -.10) indicate that paths from job
complexity to turnover and from Openness to job satisfaction would increase the fit of the model. Adding a path
between job complexity and turnover yields a direct effect of -.12, with little or no change (+/-.02) to the other
path coefficients in the model. The RMSR for this model improves to .022. Adding a path between Openness
and job satisfaction produces a direct effect of -.13, with the direct effect from Extraversion to job satisfaction
increasing from .15 to .20. The RMSR for this model (including the path between job complexity and turnover) is
.017. The next two largest residuals (.07) indicate that paths from job satisfaction to turnover and from
Extraversion to job performance would also increase the model fit. Adding the job satisfaction-turnover path
generates a direct effect of. 17. The direct effect from intent to quit to turnover also increases from .41 to .49.
The RMSR for this model (including previous changes) is .012. Finally, adding a path from Extraversion to job
performance yields a direct effect of .08 and an RMSR of .004. None of the remaining residuals are larger than
.03. Implications of the residual analyses are discussed in the following section.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to present and test a model of turnover that would aid in understanding the
processes by which dispositional traits directly and indirectly affect employee turnover decisions. In addition, the
relative importance of these traits in relation to the complexity of the job was also evaluated. The results of this
study will be discussed in two parts. The meta-analytic results will be discussed first, followed by the discussion
of the path analysis.
Discussion of Meta-Analyses
Meta-analytic estimates of the true-score correlations between FPM traits and intent to quit and turnover
indicated that personality is related to turnover intentions and behaviors. Specifically, Emotional Stability and
Conscientiousness had moderate effects on intentions to quit; and Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and
Emotional Stability had moderate effects on turnover. The pattern of results has important theoretical
implications for research on personality and turnover. Whereas Emotional Stability had the strongest
relationship with intentions to quit, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness had the strongest relationships with
turnover decisions. This indicates that although individuals' intentions to leave their organizations are more
strongly influenced by affect-laden dispositions, actual turnover decisions are largely affected by traits related to
impulsivity (Clark &Watson, 1999; Eysenck, 1997). This is consistent with prior research showing that the trait of
impulsivity relates to other counterproductive behaviors (Cullen &Sackett, 2003; Watson &Clark, 1993).
Further evidence of the role of trait affect in withdrawal intentions is the finding that differentiating between FFM
traits and trait affect had a moderating effect on the personality-intent to quit relationship. When only trait
positive affect and trait negative affect were included in the analyses, the true-score correlations with turnover
intentions were stronger than when only the FFM traits of Emotional Stability and Extraversion were included.
These results are similar to those of Thoresen et al. (2003), who also found that the true-score correlations
between trait affect and job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and stress were typically larger than the true-score
correlations that FFM traits (i.e., Extraversion and Emotional Stability) had with those outcomes. This finding is

also important as it indicates that despite the high correlations between FFM traits and trait affect, there are still
meaningful differences between the two constructs based on predictive validity. The stronger relationships for
measures of trait affect may be, in part, due to these measures capturing a greater degree of generalized mood,
including hostility and joviality (Watson &Clark, 1992), than is captured by most FFM measures. If responses on
measures of turnover intentions are influenced by mood (Brief et al., 1995), then one would expect a stronger
relationship with dispositional measures that capture mood-related variance.
It should be noted that the results in this study are somewhat different from those found in other meta-analyses
that examined the personalityturnover relationship. Compared to Barrick and Mount (1991), the findings in this
study are stronger for Emotional Stability (-.18 vs. -.02), Agreeableness (-.25 vs. -.09), and Conscientiousness (-
.20 vs. -.12); approximately the same for Openness to Experience (.10 vs. .11); and in the opposite direction for
Extraversion (-.04 vs. .03). Compared to Salgado (2002), the findings in this study are also noticeably different.
As Salgado conducted a validity generalization study (i.e., did not correct for unreliability in the predictor, but did
correct for range restriction), the appropriate estimates for comparison from this study are those listed in the
column labeled ρ^sub 1^ in Table 4. Salgado found stronger relationships for all of the traits except for
Agreeableness, which was slightly stronger in this study (-.27 vs. -.22). His results were stronger for Emotional
Stability (-.20 vs. -.35), Extraversion (-.04 vs. -.20), and Conscientiousness (-.22 vs. -.31). He also found a
larger operational validity for Openness, but in the opposite direction than the effect found in this meta-analysis
(.10 vs. -.14). Even when comparing mean observed correlations, these differences remain (i.e., the differences
are not due to differences in the degree of artifact corrections).
Based on the findings of this study, which included only non-selfreports of the complexity of the job, the actual
effect size between job complexity and job satisfaction is much lower (ρ = .19) than indicated by previous
research that primarily examined self-reports measures of job complexity/characteristics (ρ = .74, Fried &Ferris,
1987). This result suggests that although job complexity does have an impact on an incumbent's job
satisfaction, individuals' personalities have a stronger relationship with their level of satisfaction (Extraversion, p
= .25; Conscientiousness, ρ = .26; Emotional Stability, ρ = .29; Judge et al., 2002). This finding also holds for
the relationship between job complexity and job performance. The correlation found in this study (ρ = .11) was
weaker than that found by Fried and Ferris (1987, ρ = .27). This difference would be even greater had Fried and
Ferris corrected their estimate for the inter-rater reliability of job performance (as was done in this study),
instead of using coefficient alpha. Similar to job satisfaction, researchers have found stronger relationships
between most of the FFM personality traits and performance (Barrick et al., 2001), in comparison to the
magnitude of the job complexity-job performance relationship. Finally, the meta-analytic relationships between
personality and non-self-reports of job complexity were extremely weak.
Discussion of Path Analysis
The path analysis yielded important insights into understanding how personality traits influence turnover
intentions and behaviors. Specifically, personality traits have direct effects on intentions to quit and turnover, in
addition to having indirect effects through job satisfaction and job performance. Conscientiousness' largest path
coefficient is with job performance; Extraversion's with job satisfaction; Emotional Stability's with job satisfaction
and intent to quit; Agreeableness' with turnover; and Openness to experience's with turnover. Interestingly,
Emotional Stability's impact on turnover intentions is not completely explained through higher job satisfaction.
Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Openness to Experience had unique direct effects on turnover even
when controlling for job satisfaction and intention to quit. These results indicate support for the theory that
personality plays a role in spontaneous, or unplanned, quitting (i.e., turnover decisions that were not mediated
through intent to quit). Lee et al. (1994), as well as Maertz and Campion (2004), include unplanned quitting as
one way individuals leave organizations. As Conscientiousness and Agreeableness have been found to
comprise the higher-order trait of impulsivity (Clark &Watson, 1999; Eysenck, 1997), the results of this study
support turnover models and theories that suggest that impulsivity affects unplanned turnover decisions (Mobley

et al., 1979). Finally, Openness' direct effect on turnover may be explained by the idea that those higher on
Openness seek out new work environments due to curiosity (Hogan, 1983), having broad interests (Costa
&McCrae, 1985; Fiske, 1949), or being change-oriented (Howarth, 1976). This is consistent with Maertz and
Griffeth's (2004) theory that individuals high in Openness to experience would value changing jobs and would
therefore be more apt to leave an organization.
As researchers have argued that job complexity has a large impact on the satisfaction of job incumbents (Fried
&Ferris, 1987; Judge, 2000; Morgeson &Campion, 2003) and, thus, indirectly on turnover behaviors, it was
important to compare the effects of the individual with the effects of the job in a model of turnover. Based on the
results of the path analyses, even single traits (e.g., Extraversion and Emotional Stability) have larger direct
effects on job satisfaction compared to the direct effect of job complexity on satisfaction (.15/.20 and .17 vs.
.14). Further, Conscientiousness has a stronger impact on job performance compared to the effect of job
complexity (.23 vs. .10). These findings indicate that contrary to prior beliefs, personality may have a greater
influence on job satisfaction and performance than does the complexity of the job. However, as measurement of
employees' personalities and job satisfaction may have occurred at the same time, and both are usually self-
reports, the strength of the personality-job satisfaction relationships may also be somewhat inflated due to
common method bias. In addition, as job complexity is only one aspect of job design, future research should
compare the effects of personality to other operationalizations of job design.
The residual analysis indicated that four missing paths were largely responsible for lowering the fit of the
hypothesized model. Although these relationships were not hypothesized, they do warrant some exploration.
First, the negative direct effect from job complexity to turnover may be explained by the fact that complex jobs
may tend to be higher-level professional jobs that require more experience and education. Incumbents who hold
these jobs may be less likely to engage in unplanned quitting as it may take longer to obtain a new job
compared to switching lower-level and/or less-skilled positions.
Second, although the true-score correlation between Openness and job satisfaction is almost zero (.02, Judge
et al., 2002), once controlling for other traits, the direct effect is negative (-.12). Adding this path also increases
the direct effect from Extraversion to job satisfaction from .15 to .20, This finding is consistent with the theory
that individuals high on Openness may become bored with their current position and want to seek out new work
experiences (Maertz &Griffeth, 2004). The impact on the direct effect between Extraversion and job satisfaction
may be explained by overlap between Extraversion and Openness (Digman, 1997). Specifically, both
Extraversion and Openness may have links to the behavioral approach system (Watson, Wiese, Vaidya,
&Tellegen, 1999), which is a biological system that motivates organisms to explore their environment. Once
these experience-seeking aspects are controlled for by adding the path between Openness and job satisfaction,
the Extraversion-job satisfaction relationship may be better explained by the affective component of
Extraversion and it therefore becomes stronger.
Third, although previous research has suggested that intent to quit fully mediates the job satisfaction-turnover
relationship (Mobley, 1977; Tett &Meyer, 1993), the positive direct effect of job satisfaction on turnover may be
explained by employees who are satisfied with their jobs but who quit unexpectedly due to receiving better
employment offers. That is, whereas dissatisfied employees plan to quit before actually doing so, satisfied
employees do not plan their departures well in advance. Finally, the positive direct effect of Extraversion on job
performance reflects meta-analytic results that found that the magnitude of the Extraversion-performance
relationship is equal to the Emotional Stability-performance relationship (ρ = .12, Barrick et al., 2001).
Practical Implications
Based on the findings of this study, several implications for practitioners have been identified. Because four of
the five FFM traits were found to predict future turnover decisions, organizations can use personality tests
during their selection process to hire individuals who are less likely to leave the organization. Although most
organizations use applicant information to select employees based on predicted future job performance, using

prehire information to minimize future turnover is important as well. As the costs of turnover have been
estimated at 50%-100% of an employee's annual compensation (Horn &Griffeth, 1995), avoiding, or at least
delaying, employee turnover can help organizations reduce these costs. Further, because turnover has been
shown to relate to other important organizational outcomes such as customer satisfaction and productivity,
organizations who select for retention can minimize these other detrimental effects as well. Because two of the
FFM traits (Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability) that were found to predict turnover have also been
found to predict performance (Barrick &Mount, 1991), the utility of selecting on these traits is amplified. In
addition, as organizations may administer a personality test consisting of all five traits, they would already
possess the information necessary to also select on Agreeableness and Openness to Experience.
The findings of this study also have implications for organizations seeking to increase employee job satisfaction,
which is a major predictor of employee turnover, and job performance. For two decades, the main source of
evidence of the magnitude of the effect of job complexity/characteristics on job satisfaction and job performance
was Fried and Ferris' (1987) metaanalysis (ρ = .74 for job satisfaction and ρ = .27 for job performance). In fact,
organizational researchers (Judge, 2000; Morgeson &Campion, 2003) have claimed that the best way to
increase job satisfaction was to increase the job's complexity-a claim that has also been recommended in many
management-related textbooks (e.g., Mathis &Jackson, 2006; Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhardt, &Wright, 2006).
These recommendations come in spite of the fact that nearly all of the studies included in the Fried and Ferris
meta-analysis were self-reports of job complexity/characteristics and job satisfaction, and therefore subject to
the limitations discussed previously. Based on the results from this and other meta-analyses (Barrick et al.,
2001; Judge et al., 2002), practitioners should not underestimate the relative importance that dispositional traits
have on employee satisfaction and performance compared to the complexity of the job.
A final implication based on the findings of the study involves how organizations can conduct effective
interventions to minimize dysfunctional employee turnover. As was shown in the path analysis, some of the
effects between personality and turnover are direct effects, indicating that the traits partially affect turnover not
through job satisfaction or intention to quit, but through spontaneous turnover decisions. Beyond selection for
the desired traits, organizations may be able to do little to prevent these types of unplanned quits.
Future Research
In conducting this study, numerous areas of potential research were discovered. Curiously, some of the direct
effects were opposite of the expected direction. Specifically, Conscientiousness had a small, but positive direct
effect on intent to quit and Emotional Stability had a small, yet positive direct effect on turnover. These results
may be explained by the fact that conscientious employees are generally regarded as "good employees" (Mount
&Barrick, 1995) due to their work ethic and higher levels of job performance (Barrick &Mount, 1991). Such
individuals may believe that they are more able to find alternative employment and therefore be more likely to
engage in job-search activities. For employees low on Emotional Stability, they may intend to quit, but doubt
their ability to find other employment or be insecure about exposing themselves to evaluation on the job market
and therefore may actually be less likely to quit. Although these effects were small, they may warrant future
research.
Several possible mediators to the relationship between personality and work-related attitudes and withdrawal
behaviors warrant investigation as few or no studies were found that investigated these relationships.
Perceptions of organizational justice, perceived stress, and degree of socialization are all likely affected by
individual dispositions (e.g., emotionally stability) and are a cause for employee turnover. Also, based on the
work of Lee, Mitchell, and colleagues (Mitchell et al., 2001; Lee &Mitchell, 1994) and their work on job
embeddedness and the unfolding model of turnover, degree of job embeddedness and how individuals react to
shocks may play an important mediating role between personality and turnover. For example, agreeable
individuals may have stronger relationships (McCrae &Costa, 1991; Organ &Lingl, 1995) with others in their
organizations, and therefore would perceive a greater sacrifice in leaving their jobs. Employees lower in

Emotional Stability may be more apt to interpret work events as negative shocks and be more likely to have
scripts to quit their jobs. In addition, the relationship between personality traits and the motivational forces
affecting turnover (Maertz &Campion, 2004; Maertz &Griffeth, 2004) should be directly examined in future
research. For example, Maertz and Campion theorized that employees who quit without prior intentions to do so
are likely to have low contractual and constituent forces acting upon them to stay, with both forces having
theoretical ties to Conscientiousness and Agreeableness.
Numerous moderators may exist to the personality-turnover relationship that could not be investigated due to a
lack of sufficient primary studies that included these variables. One potential moderator would be the
employee's type or level of job. Specifically, employees who are in more entry-level unskilled jobs may find it
more acceptable to quit, and especially to engage in spontaneous quitting, than those in other job types as
unskilled jobs may be easier to find. Time lag between hire and the decision to leave may also act as a
moderator between some traits and turnover decisions. Some research has indicated that neurotic individuals
may be more apt to quit early in their job tenure when job demands are novel and uncertain than later in their
tenure (Barrick &Zimmerman, in press). Time lag after hire may also play a role for those higher in Openness,
as the longer an individual high in Openness stays in a job, the more they are likely to desire to seek out new
experiences.
Although characteristics of the individual and the job were both included in the study, it was not possible to
include the interaction between the two. Despite the fact that a large literature exists that examines the impact
that the interactive fit between the person and the work environment has on job attitudes and behaviors (Kristof-
Brown, Zimmerman, &Johnson, 2005), the way in which the interaction between the individual and the job is
operationalized in most studies is not commensurate with the way it would be operationalized in this study. That
is, typically person-job fit is operationalized as either the match between an individual's knowledge, skills, and
abilities with the demands of the job, or as the match between what the job supplies and the needs of the
individual. In this study, the fit between the person and the job would consist of the interaction between the
dispositional traits of the individual with the complexity of the job. Future research may wish to evaluate whether
this interaction has incremental validity over the main effects of the person and the job.
Finally, it may be useful to explore how other dispositional traits influence turnover decisions. Although there
were no studies found that examined the relationship between subfacets of the FFM traits and turnover, there
may be important differences in how subfacets of a trait relate to turnover. For example, the sociability aspect of
Extraversion may have a larger effect on turnover than the surgency component (Hogan, 1983). Similarly, no
studies have examined how the "Big 3" trait of impulsivity affects turnover, despite the fact that it has the most
direct theoretical ties to unplanned quitting.
Conclusion
The meta-analytic results of the study show that dispositional traits do have an impact on individuals' turnover
intentions and behaviors. The FFM trait of Emotional Stability best predicted (negatively) employees' intentions
to quit, whereas the traits of Conscientiousness and Agreeableness best predicted (negatively) actual turnover
decisions. This study also presented meta-analytic evidence indicating that when only non-self-report measures
of job complexity are meta-analyzed, the job complexity-job satisfaction and job complexity-job performance
relationships are not as strong as previously believed. In addition to the meta-analytic results, the path analyses
showed important direct effects from dispositions to turnover intentions and behaviors that were not explained
through satisfaction or performance. These effects indicate that employees who are low on Emotional Stability
may intend to quit for reasons other than dissatisfaction with their jobs or poor job performance. The direct
effects on turnover suggest that individuals who are low on Agreeableness or high on Openness to experience
may engage in spontaneous or unplanned quitting. Finally, the above findings and prior meta-analyses (Barrick
et al., 2001; Judge et al., 2002) reveal that individuals' dispositional traits have important effects on their job
satisfaction, performance, and turnover decisions.

References
REFERENCES
*Indicates that the study was included in the meta-analyses conducted
Allen DG, Griffeth RW. (1999). Job performance and turnover: A review and integrative multi-route model.
Human Resource Management Review, 9, 525-548.
*Allen DG, Weeks KP, Moffitt KR. (2005). Turnover intentions and voluntary turnover: The moderating roles of
self-monitoring, locus of control, proactive personality, and risk aversion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,
980-990.
*Apasu-Gbotsu Y. (1982). The role of personal values in the explanation of salespersons' performance,
satisfaction and propensity to quit. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.
*Barling J, Kelloway EK. (1996). Job insecurity and health: The moderating role of workplace control. Stress
Medicine, 12, 253-259.
Baron JN, Hannan MT, Burton MD. (2001). Labor pains: Change in organizational models and employee
turnover in your high-tech firms. American Journal of Sociology, 106, 960-1012.
Barrick MR, Mount MK. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis.
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 44, 1-26.
Burke, M.J., Brief, A.P., &George, J.M. (1993). The role of negative affectivity in understanding relations
between self-reports of stressors and strains: A comment on the applied psychology literature. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78, 402-412.
*Barrick MR, Mount MK (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationship between the Big 5 personality
dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 111-118.
*Barrick MR, Mount MK. (1996). Effects of impression management and self-deception on the predictive validity
of personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 261-272.
*Barrick MR, Zimmerman RD. (2005). Reducing voluntary, avoidable turnover through selection. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90, 159-166.
*Barrick, M.R. &Zimmerman, R.D. (in press). Hiring for retention and performance. Human Resource
Management.
Barrick MR, Mount MK, Judge TA. (2001 ). The FFM personality dimensions and job performance: Meta-
analysis of meta-analyses. Invited submission to a special "selection" issue of International Journal of Selection
and Assessment, 9, 9-30.
*Bauer TN, Erdogan B, Liden RC, Wayne SJ. (2006). A longitudinal study of the moderating role of
Extraversion: Leader-member exchange, performance, and turnover during new executive development.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 298-310.
*Begley TM, Czajka JM. (1993). Panel analysis of the moderating effects of commitment on job satisfaction,
intent to quit, and health following organizational change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 552-556.
Berlew DE, Hall DT. (1966). The socialization of managers: Effects of expectations on performance.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 11, 207-223.
*Bernardin HJ. (1977). The relationship of personality variables to organizational withdrawal. PERSONNEL
PSYCHOLOGY, 30, 17-27.
*Best RG. (2002). Are self-evaluations at the core of job burnout? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas
State University.
Blau G, Ryan J. (1997). One measuring work ethic: A neglected work commitment facet. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 51, 435-448.
*Bolino MC, Feldman DC. (2000). The antecedents and consequences of underemployment among expatriates.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 889-911.
Bollen KA. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.

* Boudreau JW, Boswell WR. (2001). Effects of personality on executive career success in the United States
and Europe. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 53-81.
* Boudreau JW, Boswell WR, Judge TA, Bretz RD Jr. Personality and Cognitive Ability as Predictors of Job
Search and Separation Among Employed Managers. Unpublished working paper, Cornell University.
*Brennan A, Skarlicki DP. (2004). Personality and perceived justice as predictors of survivors' reactions
following downsizing. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 1306-1328.
*Brief AP, Aldag RJ. (1978). The job characteristic inventory: An examination. Academy of Management
Journal, 21, 659-670.
Brief AP, Weiss HM. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology,
53, 279-307.
Brief AP, Butcher AH, Roberson L. (1995). Cookies, disposition, and job attitudes: The effects of positive mood-
inducing events and negative affectivity on job satisfaction in a field experiment. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 62, 55-62.
* Burnett-Doering JR. (1988). A meta-analysis of the validity of personality/test scores in the prediction of
employee turnover. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Tennessee.
*Cassar V, Tattersall A. (1998). Occupational stress and negative affectivity in Maltese nurses: Testing
moderating influences. Work &Stress, 12, 85-94.
*Chan D. (2001). Method effects of positive affectivity, negative affectivity, and impression management in self-
reports of work attitudes. Human Performance, 14, 7796.
*Chen ZX. (1998). Loyalty to supervisor, organizational commitment, and employee outcomes: The Chinese
case. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
*Chen PY, Spector PE. (1991). Negative affectivity as the underlying cause of correlations between Stressors
and strains. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 398-407.
*Chen X-P, Hui C, Sego DJ. (1998). The role of organizational citizenship behavior in turnover:
Conceptualization and preliminary tests of key hypotheses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 922-931.
* Chiu RK, Francesco AM. (2003). Dispositional traits and turnover intention: Examining the mediating role of
job satisfaction and affective commitment. International Journal of Manpower, 24, 284-298.
Clark LA, Watson D. (1999). Temperament: A new paradigm for trait psychology. In Pervin LA, John OP (Eds.),
Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 399-423). New York: Guilford Press.
Costa PT, McCrae RR. (1985). The NEO personality inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Cote S. (2005). A social interaction model of the effects of emotion regulation on work strain. Academy of
Management Review, 30, 509-530.
*Cropanzano R, James K, Konovsky MA. (1993). Dispositional affectivity as a predictor of work attitudes and job
performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 595-606.
Cullen MJ, Sackett PR. (2003). Personality and counterproductive workplace behavior. In Barrick MR, Ryan AM
(Eds.), Personality and work (pp. 150-182). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
*Cunningham JB, Lischeron J, Farrier M (2004). A cybernetic framework linking personality and other variables
in understanding general health. Personnel Review, 33, 55-80.
Darnold TC, Zimmerman RD. (2006). Performance and intent to quit: A meta-analysis and path model. Paper to
be presented at the 21st Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas,
TX.
*Day DV, Bedeian AG, Conte JM. (1998). Personality as predictor of work-related outcomes: Test of a mediated
latent structural model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 2068-2088.
*Diefendorff JM, Richard EM, Gosserand RH. (2006). Examination of situational and attitudinal moderators of
the hesitation and performance relation. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 59, 365-393.

Digman JM. ( 1997). Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,
1246-1256.
Digman JM, Takemoto-Chock NK. (1981). Factors in the natural language of personality. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 16, 149-170.
*Dodd NG, Ganster DC. (1996). The interactive effects of variety, autonomy, and feedback on attitudes and
performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 329-347.
*Duffy MK, Ganster DC, Shaw JD. (1998). Positive affectivity and negative outcomes: The role of tenure and job
satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 950959.
Eisenberger R, Armeli S, Rexwinkel B, Lynch PD, Rhoades L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational
support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 42-51.
Eysenck HJ. (1997). Personality and experimental psychology: The unification of psychology and the possibility
of a paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1224-1237.
Fishbein M, Ajzen I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fiske DW. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 329-344.
* Frantz RS. (1979). Beyond allocative efficiency: The role of psychological factors in worker motivation, career
choice, and industrial mobility. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington State University.
Fried Y, Ferris GR. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis.
*Ganzach Y. (1998). Intelligence and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 526-539.
*Gerhart B. (1987). How important are dispositional factors as determinants of job satisfaction? Implications for
job design and other personnel programs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 366-373.
Ghiselli EE. (1974). Some perspectives for industrial psychology. American Psychologist, 80, 80-87.
*Gilson LL. (2001). The role of procedural justice in the relationship between demographic diversity,
dissimilarity, work-related affective outcomes, and creative performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Georgia Institute of Technology.
Glebbeek AC, Bax EH. (2004). Is high employee turnover really harmful? An empirical test using company
records. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 277-286.
Glick WH, Jenkins GD, Gupta N. (1986). Method versus substance: How strong are underlying relationships
between job characteristics and attitudinal outcomes? Academy of Management Journal, 29, 441-464.
* Goodman SA. ( 1995). Linking contextual performance to job performance and attitudinal variables.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Akron.
* Gould S. (1979). Age, job complexity, satisfaction, and performance. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 14, 209-
223.
Griffeth RW, Horn PW, Gaertner S (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover:
Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463-
488.
Hackman, J. R., &Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hackman JR, Lawler EE III. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology,
55, 259-286.
Hackman JR, Oldham GR. ( 1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.
*Harvey SR. (1996). The relationship of bosses' negative interpersonal behaviours to fear of speaking-up,
tension, job satisfaction and intent to turnover. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Guelph
(Canada).

*Hochwarter WA, Amason AC, Harrison AW. (1995). Negative affectivity as a moderator of the inequity-turnover
relationship. Journal of Social Behavior &Personality, 10, 757-770.
Hogan R. (1983). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In Page M.M. (Ed.), PersonalityCurrent theory and
research: Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 55-89). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
* Holt DT. (2003). Readiness for change: The development of a scale. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Auburn University.
Horn PW, Griffeth RW. (1995). Employee turnover. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
Horn PW, Caranikas-Walker F, Prussia GE, Griffeth RW. (1992). A meta-analytical structural equations analysis
of a model of employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 890-909.
Hough LM (1992). The "Big Five" personality variables - construct confusion: Description versus prediction.
Human Performance, 5, 139-155.
* Houkes I, Janssen PPM, de Jonge J, Nijhuis FJN (2001). Work and individual determinants of intrinsic work
motivation, emotional exhaustion, and turnover intention: A multisample analysis. International Journal of Stress
Management, 8, 257-283.
*Houkes I, Janssen PPM, de Jonge J, Bakker AB (2003). Personality, work characteristics, and employee well-
being: A longitudinal analysis of additive and moderating effects. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
8,20-38.
Howarth E. ( 1976). Were Cattell's "personality share" factors correctly identified in the first instance? British
Journal of Psychology, 67, 213-230.
Hu L, Bentler PM. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In Hoyle RH (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts,
issues, and applications (pp. 76-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hulin CT, Roznowski M, Hachiya D. (1985). Alternative opportunities and withdrawal decisions: Empirical and
theoretical discrepancies and an integration. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 233-250.
Hunter J.E., Schmidt EL. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hurtz GM, Donovan JJ. (2000). Personality and job performance: The big five revisited. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85, 869-879.
Huselid MA. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity and
corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 635-672.
* Jex SM, Gudanowski DM. (1992). Efficacy beliefs and work stress: An exploratory study. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 13, 509-517.
* Jex SM, Spector PE, Gudanowski DM, Newman RA. (1991). Relations between exercise and employee
responses to work stressors: A summary of two studies. Journal of Social Behavior &Personality, 6, 425-443.
*Johns G. (1978). Task moderators of the relationship between leadership style and subordinate responses.
Academy of Management Journal, 21, 319-325.
Johns G. (2002). The psychology of lateness, absenteeism, and turnover. In. Anderson N, Ones D, Sinangil HK,
Viswesvaran C, (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 232-252).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
*Jordan SD. (1973). A comparison of Black and White employees in racially homogeneous and heterogeneous
companies: Internal-external control expectancies, powerlessness, instrumental work orientation, organizational
identification, and turnover. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.
Joreskog KG, Sorbom D. (2004). LISREL 8.71 : User's reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software.
*Judge TA. (1993). Does affective disposition moderate the relationship between job satisfaction and voluntary
turnover? Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 395-401.
Judge TA. (2000). Promote job satisfaction through mental challenge. In Locke EA (Ed.), The Blackwell
handbook of principles of organizational behavior. Oxford: Blackwell.

Judge TA, Ilies R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A metaanalytic review. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 87, 797-807.
Judge TA, Watanabe S. (1995). Is the past prologue? A test of Ghiselli's hobo syndrome. Journal of
*Judge TA, Thoresen CJ, Pucik V, Welbourne TM. (1999). Managerial coping with organizational change: A
dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 107-122.
*Judge TA, Bono JE, Locke EA. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job
characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 237-249.
Judge TA, Thoresen CJ, Bono JE, Patton GK. (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A
qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376407.
Judge TA, Heller D, Mount MK. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis.
*Kickul JR. (1999). The interactive effects of psychological contract breach and procedural and interactional
injustice in explaining employee attitudes and behaviors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois
University.
*Kiggundu MN. (1979). The integration of task interdependence in the job characteristics theory of employee
responses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto (Canada).
*Kim S-W, Price JL, Mueller CW, Watson TW (1996). The determinants of career intent among physicians at a
U.S. Air Force hospital. Human Relations, 49, 947976.
*Knotts TL. (2000). Religious involvement and dispositional characteristics as predictors of work attitudes and
behaviors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana Tech University.
* Koh WL, Yer LK. (2000). The impact of the employee-organization relationship on temporary employees'
performance and attitude: Testing a Singaporean sample. International Journal of Human Resource
Koys DJ. (2001). The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and turnover on
organizational effectiveness. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 54, 101114.
Kristof-Brown A, Zimmerman RD, Johnson EC. (2005). Consequences of individuals' fit at work: A meta-
analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. PERSONNEL
PSYCHOLOGY, 58, 281-342.
*Lam SSK, Yik MSM, Schaubroeck J. (2002). Responses to formal performance appraisal feedback: The role of
negative affectivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 192201.
Lawler EE III, Porter LW. (1967). The effect of performance on job satisfaction. Industrial Relations, 7, 20-28.
Lee TW, Mitchell TR. (1994). An alternative approach: The unfolding model of voluntary employee turnover.
Academy of Management Review, 19, 51-89.
*Lemmon RA. (2004). The relationship between correctional officers' personality and job satisfaction,
performance, and turnover. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana State University.
Louis MR. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar
organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226-251.
Louis MR, Posner BZ, Powell GN. (1983). The availability and helpfulness of socialization practices.
Maertz CP, Campion MA. (2004). Profiles in quitting: Integrating process and content turnover theory. Academy
of Management Journal, 47, 566-582.
Maertz CP, Griffeth RW. (2004). Eight motivational forces and voluntary turnover: A theoretical synthesis with
implications for research. Journal of Management, 30, 667-683.
*Malone CF. (1993). An empirical investigation of the relationships between individual and firm characteristics
and reduced audit quality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri - Columbia.

March JG, Simon HA. (1958). Organizations. New York: John Wiley.
Maslow AH. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper &Row.
Mathis RL, Jackson JH. (2006). Human resource management, (11th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Press.
*May DR, Schwoerer CE, Reed K, Potter P. (1997). Employee reactions to ergonomic job design: The
moderating effects of health locus of control and self-efficacy. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2,
11-24.
McCrae RR, Costa PT. (1991). Adding Liebe und Arbeit: The full five-factor model and well-being. Personality
&Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 227-232.
McCrae, R. R., &Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist,
52, 509-516.
McEvoy GM, Cascio WF. (1985). Strategies for reducing employee turnover: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied
*Melamed S, Fried Y, Froom P. (2001). The interactive effect of chronic exposure to noise and job complexity
on changes in blood pressure and job satisfaction: A longitudinal study of industrial employees. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 182195.
Meyer JP, Allen NJ. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human
Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.
Meyer GJ, Shack JR. (1989). The structural convergence of mood and personality: Evidence for old and new
directions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 691706.
Mischel W, Shoda Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations,
dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246-268.
Mischel W, Shoda Y. (1998). Reconciling processing dynamics and personality dispositions. Annual Review of
Mitchell TR, Holtom BC, Lee TW, Sablynski CJ, Erez M. (2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to
predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1102-1121.
Mobley WH, (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover.
Mobley WH, Griffeth RW, Hand HH, Meglino BM. ( 1979). Review and conceptual analysis of the employee
turnover process. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 493-522.
*Moore JE. (1997). A causal attribution approach to work exhaustion: The relationship of causal locus,
controllability, and stability to job-related attitudes and turnover intention of the work-exhausted employee.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.
* Moore S, Grunberg L, Greenberg E. (2004). Repeated downsizing contact: The effects of similar and
dissimilar layoff experiences on work and well-being outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9,
247-257.
Morgeson FP, Campion MA. (2003). Work design. In Borman WC, Ilgen DR (Eds.), Handbook of psychology:
Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp.423-452). New York: John Wiley &Sons.
Mount MK, Barrick MR. (1995). The Big Five personality dimensions: Implications for research and practice in
human resources management. In Ferris GR (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management
(Vol. 13, pp. 153-200). JAI Press.
Mount MK, Barrick MR, Scullen SM, Rounds J. (2005). Higher order dimensions of the Big Five personality
traits and the Big Six vocational interest types. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 58, 447-478.
* Mount MK, Witt LA, Barrick MR (2000). Incremental validity of empirically keyed biodata scales over GMA and
the five factor personality constructs. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 53, 299-323.
*Necowitz LB, Roznowski M. (1994). Negative affectivity and job satisfaction: Cognitive processes underlying
the relationship and effects on employee behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 270-294.

Niles FS. (1999). Toward a cross-cultural understanding of work-related beliefs. Human Relations, 52, 855-867.
Noe RA, Hollenbeck JR, Gerhart B, Wright PM (2006). Human resource management: Gaining a competitive
advantage. (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
* Oldham GR, Kulik CT, Stepina LP. ( 1991 ). Physical environments and employee reactions: Effects of
stimulus-screening skills and job complexity. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 929-938.
O'Reilly CA, Caldwell DF, Barnett WP. (1989). Work group demography, social integration, and turnover.
Organ DW. (1994). Personality and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management, 20, 465-478.
Organ DW, Lingl A. (1995). Personality, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Social
*Osborn SS. (1976). An investigation of voluntary and involuntary turnover among managers and professionals.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Memphis State University.
*Parasuraman S, Alutto JA. (1984). Sources and outcomes of stress in organizational settings: Toward the
development of a structural model. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 330-350.
* Pelled LH, Xin KR. (1999). Down and out: An investigation of the relationship between mood and employee
withdrawal behavior. Journal of Management, 25, 875895.
* Pendergrass LA. (2002). Personality similarity as a predictor of organizational turnover: A test of attraction-
selection-attrition theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.
* Phillips GM. (2000). Perceived organizational support: An extended model of the mediating and moderating
effects of self-structures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Akron.
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research:
A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Porter LW, Steers RM. (1973). Organizational, work, and personal factors in employee turnover and
absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 151-176.
*Robie C, Ryan AM, Schmieder RA, Parra LF, Smith PC. (1998). The relation between job level and job
satisfaction. Group &Organization Management, 23, 470-495.
*Saks AM, Ashforth BE. (2000). The role of dispositions, entry stressors, and behavioral plasticity theory in
predicting newcomers' adjustment to work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 43-62.
Salgado JF. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European Community.
Salgado JF. (1998). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance in Army and civil occupations: A
European perspective. Human Performance, 11, 271-288.
Salgado JF. (2002). The Big Five personality dimensions and counterproductive behaviors. International Journal
of Selection &Assessment, 10, 117-125.
Salgado JF. (2003). Predicting job performance using FFM and non-FFM personality measures. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 323-346.
*Sanchez JI, Zamora A, Viswesvaran C. (1997). Moderators of agreement between incumbent and non-
incumbent ratings of job characteristics. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 209-218.
*Schaubroeck J, Lam SSK, Xie JL. (2000). Collective efficacy versus self-efficacy in coping responses to
stressors and control: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 512-525.
Schmidt FL, Le H. (2004). Software for the Hunter-Schmidt meta-analysis methods. University of Iowa,
Department of Management &Organization, Iowa City, IA. 42242.
Settoon RP, Bennett N, Liden RC. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support,
leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 219-227.
*Shalley CE, Gilson LL, Blum TC. (2000). Matching creativity requirements and the work environment: Effects
on satisfaction and intentions to leave. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 215-223.

*Shaw JD, Gupta N. (2004). Job complexity, performance, and well-being: When does supplies-values fit
matter? PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 57, 847-879.
*Shaw JD, Duffy MK, Ali Abdulla MH, Singh R. (2000). The moderating role of positive affectivity: Empirical
evidence from bank employees in the United Arab Emirates. Journal of Management, 26, 139-154.
*Skyrme PT. (1992). The relationship of job stressors to work performance, intent to quit, and absenteeism of
first line supervisors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida.
Spector PE. (1992). A consideration of the validity and meaning of self-report measures of job conditions. In
Cooper CL, Robertson I (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 123-151).
New York: John Wiley &Sons.
*Spector PE, Jex SM. (1991). Relations of job characteristics from multiple data sources with employee affect,
absence, turnover intentions, and health. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 46-53.
Spector PE, Jex SM. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job Stressors and strain:
Interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative workload inventory, and
physical symptoms inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 356-367.
*Spector PE, Jex SM, Chen PY. (1995). Relations of incumbent affect-related personality traits with incumbent
and objective measures of characteristics of jobs. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 59-65.
* Spector PE, Fox S, Van Katwyk PT. (1999). The role of negative affectivity in employee reactions to job
characteristics: Bias effect or substantive effect? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72,
205-218.
Staw BM, Bell NE, Clausen JA. (1986). The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime longitudinal test.
Steers RM, Mowday RT. (1981). Employee turnover and post-decision accommodation processes. In
Cummings L Staw B (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 235-281). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
*Stone EF, Porter LW. (1978). On the use of incumbent-supplied job-characteristics data. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 46, 751-758.
Tellegen, A. (1985). Structures of mood and personality and their relevance to assessing anxiety, with an
emphasis on self-report. In A. H. Tuma &J. D. Maser (Eds.), Anxiety and the anxiety disorders (pp. 681-706).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tett RP, Meyer JP. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path
analysis based on meta-analytic findings. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 46, 259-293.
*Thoresen CJ. (2001). Antecedents and consequences of coping with setbacks at work: A theory-driven
framework. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa.
Thoresen CJ, Kaplan SA, Barsky AP, de Chermont K, Warren CR. (2003). The affective underpinnings of job
perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic review and integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 914-945.
Tokar DM, Fischer AR, Subich LM. (1998). Personality and vocational behavior: A selective review of the
literature, 1993-1997. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 115153
*Turner JH. (1999). Consequences of contingent compensation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana
Tech University.
*Tuten TL, Neidermeyer PE. (2004). Performance, satisfaction and turnover in call centers: The effects of stress
and optimism. Journal of Business Research, 57, 26-34.
* van den Berg PT, Feij JA. (2003). Complex relationships among personality traits, job characteristics, and
work behaviors. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 326-339.
Viswesvaran C, Ones DS. (1995). Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta-analysis and structural
equations modeling. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 48, 865-885.
Viswesvaran C, Ones DS, Schmidt FL. (1996). Comparative analysis of the reliability of job performance
ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 557-574.

Vroom VH. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
*Wanberg CR, Kanfer R, Banas J. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of networking intensity among unemployed
job seekers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 491503.
Watson D, Clark LA. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience negative emotional states.
Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465-490.
Watson D, Clark LA. (1992). On traits and temperament: General and specific factors of emotional experience
and their relation to the five factor model. Journal of Personality, 60, 441-476.
Watson D, Clark LA. (1993). Behavioral disinhibition versus constraint: A dispositional perspective. In Wegner
DM, Pennebaker JW (Eds.), Handbook of mental control (pp. 506-527). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Watson D, Clark LA. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In Hogan R, Johnson JA, Briggs SR
(Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 767-793). San Diego: Academic Press.
Watson D, Hubbard B. (1996). Adaptation style and dispositional structure: Coping in the context of the five-
factor model. Journal of Personality, 64, 737-774.
Watson D, Slack AK. (1993). General factors of affective temperament and their relation to job satisfaction over
time. Organizational Behavior &Human Decisions Processes, 54, 181-202.
Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative
affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
Watson D, Clark LA, Harkness AR. (1994). Structures of personality and their relevance to psychopathology.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 18-31.
Watson D, Wiese D, Vaidya J, Tellegen A. (1999). The two general activation systems of affect: Structural
findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence. Journal of Personality and Social
Weitz, J. (1952). A neglected concept in the study of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 5, 201-205.
Weiss HM, Cropanzano R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes,
and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 1-74.
Wong CS, Hui C, Law KS. (1998). A longitudinal study of the job perception job satisfaction relationship: A test
of the three alternative specifications. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71, 127-146.
* Wright MD. (1986). Relationships among esteem, autonomy, job satisfaction and the intention to quit teaching
of downstate Illinois industrial education teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.
* Wright TA, Cropanzano R. (1998). Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of job performance and voluntary
turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 486-493.
Zimmerman, R.D. &Darnold, T.C. (in press). The Impact of Job Performance on Employee Turnover Intentions
and the Voluntary Turnover Process: A Meta-Analysis and Path Model. Personnel Review.
AuthorAffiliation
RYAN D. ZIMMERMAN
Texas A &M University
AuthorAffiliation
This manuscript is based on the author's dissertation. The author thanks Murray Barrick, Frank Schmidt, Mick
Mount, Amy Kristof-Brown, and David Watson for their invaluable comments on earlier versions of this
manuscript. He also thanks Ann Marie Ryan and three anonymous reviewers for their important contributions.
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Ryan D. Zimmerman, Department of
Management, Mays Business School, Texas A &M University, College Station, TX, 77843-4221;
rzimmerman@mays.tamu.edu.
Subject: Impact analysis; Personality traits; Employee turnover; Occupational psychology; Studies;

Classification: 6100: Human resource planning; 9130: Experiment/theoretical treatment
Publication title: Personnel Psychology
Volume: 61
Issue: 2
Pages: 309-348
Number of pages: 40
Publication year: 2008
Publication date: Summer 2008
Publisher: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Place of publication: Durham
Country of publication: United Kingdom
Publication subject: Business And Economics--Management, Business And Economics--Personnel

Management, Psychology
ISSN: 00315826
Source type: Scholarly Journals
Language of publication: English
Document type: Feature
Document feature: Diagrams Tables References
ProQuest document ID: 220134411
Document URL: http://search.proquest.com/docview/220134411?accountid=136549
Copyright: Copyright Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Summer 2008
Last updated: 2013-06-15
Database: ProQuest Central

Bibliography
Citation style: APA 6th - American Psychological Association, 6th Edition
Ryan, D. Z. (2008). UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT OF PERSONALITY TRAITS ON INDIVIDUALS'

TURNOVER DECISIONS: A META-ANALYTIC PATH MODEL. Personnel Psychology, 61(2), 309-348.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/220134411?accountid=136549
_______________________________________________________________
Contact ProQuest
Copyright  2016 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. - Terms and Conditions

ProQuestDocuments 2016 03 21

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ProQuestDocuments 2016 03 21

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

_______________________________________________________________

Report Information from ProQuest

21 March 2016 ProQuest

1. UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT OF PERSONALITY TRAITS ON INDIVIDUALS' TURNOVER

21 March 2016 ii ProQuest

UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT OF PERSONALITY TRAITS ON INDIVIDUALS' TURNOVER

ProQuest document link

Full text: Headnote

21 March 2016 Page 1 of 26 ProQuest

21 March 2016 Page 2 of 26 ProQuest

21 March 2016 Page 3 of 26 ProQuest

21 March 2016 Page 4 of 26 ProQuest

21 March 2016 Page 5 of 26 ProQuest

21 March 2016 Page 6 of 26 ProQuest

21 March 2016 Page 7 of 26 ProQuest

21 March 2016 Page 8 of 26 ProQuest

21 March 2016 Page 9 of 26 ProQuest

21 March 2016 Page 10 of 26 ProQuest

21 March 2016 Page 11 of 26 ProQuest

21 March 2016 Page 12 of 26 ProQuest

21 March 2016 Page 13 of 26 ProQuest

21 March 2016 Page 14 of 26 ProQuest

21 March 2016 Page 15 of 26 ProQuest

21 March 2016 Page 16 of 26 ProQuest

21 March 2016 Page 17 of 26 ProQuest

21 March 2016 Page 18 of 26 ProQuest

21 March 2016 Page 19 of 26 ProQuest

21 March 2016 Page 20 of 26 ProQuest

21 March 2016 Page 21 of 26 ProQuest

21 March 2016 Page 22 of 26 ProQuest

21 March 2016 Page 23 of 26 ProQuest

21 March 2016 Page 24 of 26 ProQuest

Publication title: Personnel Psychology

Publication year: 2008

Publication date: Summer 2008

Publisher: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Place of publication: Durham

Country of publication: United Kingdom

Publication subject: Business And Economics--Management, Business And Economics--Personnel

Source type: Scholarly Journals

Language of publication: English

Document type: Feature

Document feature: Diagrams Tables References

ProQuest document ID: 220134411

Document URL: http://search.proquest.com/docview/220134411?accountid=136549

Copyright: Copyright Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Summer 2008

Last updated: 2013-06-15

Database: ProQuest Central

21 March 2016 Page 25 of 26 ProQuest

Ryan, D. Z. (2008). UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT OF PERSONALITY TRAITS ON INDIVIDUALS'

21 March 2016 Page 26 of 26 ProQuest

Вам также может понравиться