Effect Of Personality On Perceived Work Performance Final With Apa7676edited

Running head: WORK PERFORMANCE 1

Effect of personality on perceived work performance, and work performance subsequent to the

evaluation

[Author Name(s), First M. Last, Omit Titles and Degrees]

[Institutional Affiliation(s)]

Author Note

[Include any grant/funding information and a complete correspondence address.]

WORK PERFORMANCE 2

Table of Contents

Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 3

[Title Here, up to 12 Words, on One to Two Lines] ............................................................ 4

[Heading 1] ......................................................................................................................... 4

[Heading 2] .................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

[Heading 3] ................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

References ......................................................................................................................... 25

Footnotes ........................................................................................................................... 32

Tables ................................................................................................................................ 33

Figures............................................................................................................................... 34

WORK PERFORMANCE 3

Abstract

This research paper will critically examine personality in workplaces concerning employees.

Through this, various problems encountered by the employees in their workplaces that can

impact an individual's behavior and personality will get discussed and their impacts on a person's

performances. Besides, the research samples various opinions regarding the subject on issues

related to theories, types and impacts on the performance. The research employed data collection

as an analytical instrument when collecting information. Data analysis centered on the

respondents acquired from administering questionnaires that involved over 50 respondents. After

data analysis, conclusions get drawn that agreeableness and conscientiousness possess positive a

significant impact on a company's performance. Also, there were recommendations made to

make sure that workers portray good personality and behavior in their various workplaces plus

other different environments as this will increase their productivity during their performances in

their organizations. Individuals should undertake future research regarding different contexts or

widen their research by increasing the size of the samples to guarantee reliable and valid results.

Keywords: employees, Organizational Performance, Agreeableness, Openness to

experience, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism

WORK PERFORMANCE 4

Effect of personality on perceived work performance, and work performance subsequent to the

evaluation

It is common for people to possess diverse instincts that consequently determine their

personalities concerning how they act or react when exposed to different environments. For a worker,

personality is a paramount factor in determining an organization's objectives in terms of excellent

performances and the company's profits. The research recognizes that for an organization to maximize its

benefits, customer loyalty is the most dependable factor. First impressions from employees help build

satisfaction and loyalty. Personality involves an individual's attitude, behavior, thinking, perception, and

reaction towards an individual and their environment. We can define personality as a dynamic or

characteristics that a person possesses that impact behavior, motivation, and cognition in given

circumstances. Research indicates that personality could be significant in predicting work performance

because how a person relates with others, how one solves problems and how an employee completes his

tasks is a paramount factor in predicting an organization's achievement. This later affects overall job

performance. Personality combines an individual's characters, forming unique characteristics for diverse

people. For instance, some individuals are more extraverted, while others are not. Various profile tools

regarding this subject may help evaluate a person's life skills, values, and attributes to help examine work

performance. The organizational performance involves when a company accomplishes its targets

regardless of the internal and external dimensions and personalities that impacted the performance.

Employee personality could be vital in ensuring better performance levels and serve as a predictor in self-

assessment and appraisals carried out in work.

Personality Types

Previous research has shown how certain types of people perform better in different

occupations depending on their traits, which can be associated with their corresponding job

performance (Barrick, 1991). The trait of Extraversion, for instance, was found to prosper in

occupations requiring some social interaction (Barrick, 1991). When addressing job

WORK PERFORMANCE 5

performance, the effect of personality has been an important factor for psychologists to focus on.

Research has shown the effects of self-esteem (SE) and task performance, where people with low

SE would make more errors than people with higher SE on self-reflection tasks (Brockner,

1979).

Furthermore, feedback on self-appraisals (SA) appears to mark job performance to some

extent, in particular, future-oriented SA's (Campbell & Lee, 1988). Conversely, formal appraisals

(FA) have been turned out to affect future performance (Bernardin & Beatty, 1984; Ilgen, Fisher,

& Taylor, 1979; Ilgen, Peterson, Martin, & Boeschen, 1981), while the impact of feedback on

performance has been found to be not consistent (Jawahar, 2010). Several theories on appraisals

show employee reactions to feedback determine whether the employee accepts the feedback

(Jawahar, 2010). Employees react more positively to high or higher than expected results of

performance feedback (Brett & Atwater, 2001). However, studies overall suggest that

constructive and useful feedback aids increase performance (Jawahar, 2010). The aspect of job

performance has been contemplated on its own for several centuries. Ever since the Venetian

Arsenal brought together tens of thousands of artisans to the public shipyards of the city in the

XVII century, the difficulties arising from such complex workforce had to be confronted (Davis,

1991).

To maximize production, group discipline was put forward to curb the personal

independence of the shipbuilders (Davis, 1991). Over a century later, the first English factory

would come to a similar conclusion (Davis, 1991). In the early XX century, the mass-production

of Henry Ford's Model T involved a major innovation for the rising middle class in America

(Folkmann, 2015). The assembly line that was established used non-skill laborers to perform

WORK PERFORMANCE 6

basic tasks, thereby increasing job performance (Hounshell,1984). However, employers suffered

from boredom and fatigue and overall harsh working conditions.

On top of that, they were not allowed to form unions or interact with one another at the

workplace (Hounshell,1984). For this reason, a constant turnover of workers was needed to

sustain the assembly line. Still, its success led other companies to follow the same procedure to

increase work performance in their respective businesses, and this became an important field

gaining a lot of interest. Regarding occupations in the XXI century, work and organizational

psychologists constantly look at ways to improve job performance that translate into the best

possible economic benefits. They often stumble upon the same struggles the Ford above Motor

Company had to confront: an increase in production commonly leads to lower satisfaction rates

among workers, as they are left out of the equation. It mostly fails to look at people as talented

individuals with unique skills to offer. As physical and mental health recently gained a lot of

attention and posed a more concerning issue in our current society, several studies have related

employer's stress to their work life (Carayon et al., 1999; Lloyd et al., 2002; Semmer, 2011).

Therefore, the final objective is to come up with ideas that improve work performance but also

bear in mind people’s mental limits as their personal and work life interact with one another.

Personality Trait and Job Performance

There is research that explains that being more associated with certain personality traits can

increase job performance (Barrick,1991). Based on the Big 5 personality scale (the OCEAN

model: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism), the

relation between different personalities and job performance (Barrick,1991) has uncovered

findings such as that extroverted people tend to perform better in high sociability associated

occupations (e.g., marketing). There is also research focused on showing how job satisfaction

WORK PERFORMANCE 7

shows correlations with the Big 5 personality traits (Judge et al., 2002). A meta-analysis revealed

Neuroticism showed the highest correlation, followed by Conscientiousness and Extraversion

(Judge et al., 2002). It is normal to assume feedback is usually associated with improved

performance. Research in the area suggests the same (London, 2003).

On the other hand, a meta-analysis by Luger and Denisi (1996) found some clear indicators that

associate feedback, with decreased performance. It is clear that feedback affects performance,

but there are arguments about its effect on performance. The role of personality, however, in

terms of the feedback given to the employee is something that is yet to get addressed.

The feedback given to the employees need not be in the form of the appraisal. There are different

methods which are as beneficial as feedback through appraisals (DeGreggorio,1988). One

method is self-assessment. There has been researching showing self-assessment is a good tool for

learning, thereby increasing performance. Among school students, it was found that teaching

students how to self-assess themselves resulted in better academic results (McDonald, 2003).

Essentially, self-assessment can be considered as a tool which promotes learning (David, 2001).

We could describe learning as self-motivation. However, research has shown that sometimes, this

is not always the case. Sometimes it's the only the perception of self-assessment that improves

(Montgomery, 2007). Meta-analytic critics involving personality traits of the Big5 and self-

motivation have indicated there exists strong correlations between them. The traits of

Conscientiousness and Neuroticism show the strongest and the most consistent (Judge & Ilies,

2002). We could argue that maybe personality can affect performance. Prior research reveals that

self-development and feedback appear to have some kind of dependence on one another (London

et al., 1999). If personality traits and feedback show similar significant relationships, it is quite

WORK PERFORMANCE 8

plausible that it could have effects on creating an inherent need for development. The aim of the

current paper is to identify if there exists a relationship between personality and performance

levels with respect to feedback provided. As such one of the hypotheses of this research paper

can be stated as the following,

(1) to determine if the personality traits of an individual, based on the Big 5 personality traits

and mindfulness, lead to a discrepancy between actual performance and self-assessed

performance

The results from this hypothesis could maybe showcase if people that rank higher in some

personality traits based on the Big5 rate their self-assessed performances higher than their actual

performance. This would help to strengthen the effect appraisals and assessments done in the

workplace and make them more accurate if there exists a significant relationship with personality

traits.

Hypothesis Testing.

As mentioned earlier, there is research dedicated to showing how people with high scores

on individual personality traits are better acquitted to handle specific jobs. However, we cannot

constantly keep matching traits with specific jobs. People can end up performing jobs not suited

to their personality traits due to many possible reasons (environmental, family, security, etc.).

There have been studies focusing on goal setting, performance appraisal, and feedback in

cultural differences context. Research (although limited in this area) has indicated that there exist

strong relationships with Hofstede's cultural dimensions concerning feedback (Audia, 2017 &

WORK PERFORMANCE 9

Migliore, 2011). Based on meta-analytic critics, some cultures were identified to prefer harsh

feedback, while others more positive feedback (Audia, 2017). There was no clear indication as to

what harsh feedback was defined as. There are quantitative and qualitative analyses linking

personality traits of the Big5 with Hofstede's cultural dimensions. Aggregate personality traits

have found to be congruent with the value systems and customs of culture (Hofstede, 2004).

Therefore, we could maybe assume that if cultural differences show preferences in feedback,

personality traits could also show similar results. The following is the other hypothesis of the

current research paper,

(2) whether the effects of a relative negative/positive evaluation of performance provided

through feedback on the performance induces an improvement in performance due to

(irrespective of the actual performance of the employee) concerning personality traits of

the Big5 and mindfulness.

These results of the research could be beneficial to both the organization and the employee. The

role of the appraisal can go further beyond improving performance. Rewards, bonuses, emotions

experienced are all factors that can be determined based on using personality as a criterion.

Therefore, based on the literature gathered, it could be suggested that there may exist some

associations or interactions between personality types, performance, and feedback provided.

WORK PERFORMANCE 10

Methods

Participants: Participants included anyone over the age of 18 from any geographic

location since the data got obtained through means of an online questionnaire and test. The

participants were approached through means of social media. There was no fee awarded for

participation. There was no direct or personal interaction with any of the participants. There was

complete anonymity with regards to participants’ names. Gender was also asked to check if their

existed gender differences concerning the results. Each participant was provided with

background information on the procedure for the experiment. Informed consent was obtained

from the participants before their data collection. Participants were informed that their data

would be collected anonymously. Therefore their data cannot be traced back to them. There was

a total of xyz number of participants. Out of the XYZ number of participants, data from xyz

number of participants were outliers or had missing values in the data collected.

Online Survey & Test with Measures explained: Participants were first asked their age,

gender, and their preferred handedness. Participants were also asked how many hours of sleep

they had the previous night. This was to explore descriptive statistics. Each participant was

required to take two surveys. The first was a personality assessment questionnaire. A short form

of the Big5 personality questionnaire (Lang,2011) was used to ensure a robust method to

measure personality traits. The traits were based on the OCEAN (Openness, Conscientiousness,

Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism) model. The questionnaire consisted of a total of 3

WORK PERFORMANCE 11

questions for each personality trait. There was a total of 15 statements. Out of the 15 statements,

4 of them were reverse coded for their responses. This means that the more they were in favor of

the response the lesser they corresponded to the trait that was being analyzed via the statement.

They were the 3rd, 6th, 10th, and 14th statement. The response for each question could be

marked on the Likert scale with seven options.

The range of options was as follows "Strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree,

neither agree nor disagree, somewhat agree, agree, strongly agree.". The participants were given

the statement "I see myself as someone who" and had to pick how they corresponded to each

statement. This was the only measure used for this personality survey Mindfulness questionnaire.

After completing the surveys, participants were asked to perform a Mackworth Clock experiment

(Mackworth,1948). The Mackworth clock task (Mackworth,1948) is a vigilance task. The main

aim of the task is to induce stress during the performance and ask the participants how they think

they fared in the test. Vigilance tasks can be lengthy but can be used to induce stress and

cognitive fatigue (Warm, 2008).

For this reason, the "Mackworth clock test" (Mackworth,1948) is an ideal candidate to

induce cognitive fatigue to stimulate similar workday situations. This includes all forms of work

(playing sports as a profession can also be considered). The participants were presented with a

modified version of the Mackworth clock experiment. There was a green clock with just the

second's hand. There were no numbers displayed on the clock. The task was to hit the "spacebar"

button when the second's hand made a bigger tick than normal. Participants were introduced to

the task via a set of instructions and a trial run which lasted about 20 seconds.

Feedback was provided via red or green colors on the center of the dial to indicate an

unsuccessful or successful attempt. This was to help participants gain some familiarity with the

WORK PERFORMANCE 12

experiment. There was no data recoded from this trial run. The next step was the first trial, which

was measured. During this attempt, the clock was modified to show no immediate feedback to

participants. The task lasted for a total of 4 minutes. There was a total of 7 measures for each

trial. The first four measures were reaction time, status (if whether any response was provided or

not), the current position of the hand, the degree of jump by the clock hand was significant. The

final three measure were used to indicate if the detection by the participant was correct,

incorrect, or missed. The participants were asked to rate their performance on a 7 item Likert

scale ranging from very bad to very good. They were then shown a randomly generated result

about their performance. There was a total of two possible outcomes. One outcome told the

participants they performed very well, while another said they did not perform well. There were

no values displayed. This is a key measure for the experiment. It is a measure that indicates the

type of feedback given and essentially was randomly generated by the computer. The participants

were then prompted to perform the Mackworth clock task again. The conditions of the clock and

the measures used are the same ones from the previous trial. This trial was also four minutes

long. This concluded the survey/experiment. The participants were then notified that the result

they obtained during the test was not a true one and was randomly generated.

The procedure of calculations: To test the hypotheses, the measures from the

survey/experiment were used to assemble the key variables of the data. Both the surveys had

simple Likert scales with values ranging from 1 to 7. Each trait from the OCEAN model and the

mindfulness questionnaire had a variable, in total, there were six variables from the section.

Therefore, the score for each trait was calculated by calculating the mean value from all

responses about that trait. The data from the two Mackworth clock trials was calculated under

seven different measures. The first four measures were reaction time, status (if whether any

WORK PERFORMANCE 13

response was provided or not), the current position of the hand, the degree of the jump by the

clock hand was significant. The final three measurements were used to indicate if the detection

by the participant was correct, incorrect, or missed. The first four measures were considered

irrelevant to the research question at hand. As such, they were ignored. Since detection could

either be correct, incorrect, or missed, there were all mutually exclusive events. The total number

of correct detections in each trial was calculated. This showed the number of right detections for

each trial by the participant. The sum of incorrect and missed detections was also calculated.

This served was wrong detections made by the participant for each trial. This was followed by

calculating the ratio of right detections to the total amount of detections (correct+ incorrect+

missed) and the ratio of wrong detections to the total amount of detections. As such, the

measures of the Mackworth clock task was reduced to two variables for each trial.

Between the two trials, the participants were asked to rate their performance on a 7 item

Likert scale with the options ranging from very bad to very good. The values from this scale

were standardized to percentage values.

The type of feedback randomly generated by the computer served as a key variable. The

first step in calculation required, creating two distinct groups based on the feedback provided.

The value of the difference in performance between the first and second trial was also

calculated. The performance was then measured in percentages. The participants were then

grouped under three categories based on the percentages; People who showed increased

performance, people who showed decreased performance and people who showed neither.

A scatter plot was created for each personality trait and each type of performance under

each possible feedback.

WORK PERFORMANCE 14

The first hypotheses required measuring the interaction between self-assessed

performance and actual performance between the two tasks. There were 3 categories that were

created using the difference between how participants rated themselves and how they actually

performed between the two tests. Statistical frequency tests (Z-tests) were carried out with the

data to see the distributions and if they were any significant findings. A regression analysis was

carried out using the discrepancy in performance percentage as the dependent variable and the

personality traits as the independent variable. The whole model was tested with respect to

personality traits this way.

The second hypotheses required measuring the difference between performance on the

first trial and second trial. Z-test was carried out within (these) categories to see distribution and

if any significant results could be assessed. A multivariate measures linear model test was

performed with the following variables; Performance percentage values after the 1st and 2nd test

was combined to form a single factor (factor1) and the type of feedback provided. If the findings

were significant, the relationship with personality traits could be explored, further exploration

could be warranted in the area with respect to each individual trait and its interaction with

feedback with respect to performance levels.

WORK PERFORMANCE 15

Results

The mean and standard deviation for the variables are displayed in table 1.1.

Distribution was done using discrepancy between self-Assessed performance and actual

performance subdivided into three categories (positive, negative, and neutral), type of feedback

involved, and self-assessment rating. One observation from the distribution was that neutral

discrepancy was associated with improved performance irrespective of feedback.

WORK PERFORMANCE 16

WORK PERFORMANCE 17

Table 1.1 Descriptives

The results for the first hypotheses were as follows (), The R value is 0.420, F value is 1.202, the

p-value is 0.334. Due to the p-value being greater than 0.05, we do not accept that there are a

significant cause and effect relationship between the between performance in the first trial and

self-assessed performance by the participants.

Table 1.2; Anova

ANOVA

Model

Sum

of Squares

Mean

Square

ig.

Reg

ression

3331.

072

666.2

716

617

Mean

Std. Deviation

openness1

5.46118

1.180225

conscientiousness1

5.28471

1.069722

extroversion1

4.40176

1.370995

agreeableness1

5.68647

.848771

neuroticism1

4.00000

1.486213

rating_of_performanc

4.24

1.634

pos_neg_feedback1

1.56

.504

RightAll_1Block

.293053864188

549

.256834693520

969

RightAll_2Block

.358571235150

031

.299233731956

041

WrongAll_1Block

.706946135811

451

.256834693520

969

WrongAll_2Block

.641428764849

969

.299233731956

041

WORK PERFORMANCE 18

Res

idual

26048

.709

930.3

Tot

29379

.782

a. Dependent Variable: Discrepancy_percentage

b. Predictors: (Constant), neuroticism1, openness1, extroversion1,

agreeableness1, conscientiousness1

Table 1.3

Model Summary

odel

Square

Adjus

ted R Square

Std.

Error of the

Estimate

337

-.045

30.50

100

a. Predictors: (Constant), neuroticism1, openness1,

extroversion1, agreeableness1, conscientiousness1

Table 1.4

Correlations

Discre

pancy_percent

age

Pearson

Correlation

Discrepanc

y_percentage

1.000

openness1

.126

conscientio

usness1

.181

extroversio

-.255

agreeablen

ess1

.049

neuroticis

-.106

Sig. (1-tailed)

Discrepanc

y_percentage

openness1

.240

conscientio

usness1

.153

extroversio

.073

agreeablen

ess1

.392

neuroticis

.275

WORK PERFORMANCE 19

The results of the second hypothesis were as are tabulated under (), there was no significant

value (p-value) less than 0.05. Therefore, the results of the interaction between the performance

in the first trial and second trial (factor1) have to be rejected. For the interaction between factor1

and feedback, the p-value was also greater than 0.05. As a result, we have to conclude that there

no interaction between the performance change between the trials and the feedback provided.

Table 1.5

Multivariate Tests

Effect

alue

Hypot

hesis df

rror df

ig.

factor1

Pillai's

Trace

073

.527

1.000

2.000

122

Wilks'

Lambda

927

.527

1.000

2.000

122

Hotelling'

s Trace

079

.527

1.000

2.000

122

Roy's

Largest Root

079

.527

1.000

2.000

122

factor1 *

pos_neg_feedbac

Pillai's

Trace

002

077

1.000

2.000

783

Wilks'

Lambda

998

077

1.000

2.000

783

Hotelling'

s Trace

002

077

1.000

2.000

783

Roy's

Largest Root

002

077

1.000

2.000

783

a. Design: Intercept + pos_neg_feedback1

Within Subjects Design: factor1

b. Exact statistic

WORK PERFORMANCE 20

The descriptive statistics table gives both the standard mean and the standard deviation

for every variable. The mean and standard deviation helps in the general overview of the way

respondents gave the answers to the questions asked. Basing the argument on the table, among

the 11 personality variables, agreeableness1 is the frequently displayed variable having a mean

score of 5.68647 with a standard deviation value of 0.848771 and RightAll_1Block is the least

displayed variable with a mean score of 0.29305386 and a standard deviation value of

0.2568347. Other variables include; openness1 with mean value 5.46118 (SD = 1.180225),

conscientiousness1 with mean 5.28471 (SD = 1.069722), extoversion1 having a mean of 4.40176

(SD = 1.370995), neuroticism1 with mean of 4.00000 (SD = 1.486213), rating_of_performance1

with mean value 4.24 (SD = 1.634), pos_neg_feedback1 with mean 1.56 (SD = 0.504),

RightAll_2Block with mean 0.358571 (SD = 0.29923373), WrongAll_1Block with mean of

0.70694614 (SD = 0.2568347), and finally WrongAll_2Block having a mean of 0.6414288 (SD

= 0.29923373). From the ANOVA table (), the F- value is 0.716, and the table value of 95% is

1.645. This implies that the F-value do not lie in the acceptance region as it is greater than the

table value, which is 1.645. We, therefore, reject the null hypothesis and therefore, conclude that

there is no relationship or association between the performance in the first trial and the self-

assessed performance by the performance.

As shown in the model summary of the results found in the research, the Adjusted R

square values are -0.045. This implies that the independent variables indicate 4.5% providing

change in the performance in the. Task, the remaining 95.5% do not provide a significant change

to the performance of work in the organization. The model is not a line of best fit as the R square

value is 11.3%, which is less than the minimal 60%.

WORK PERFORMANCE 21

Discussion

The primary goals of the research were to determine if personalities traits of the Big5

showed a relationship with the discrepancy in self-assessment and performance levels in

vigilance tasks. From the results of the first hypothesis we can infer, there is no significant

interaction or relationships that can be noticed between the evaluation of performance and

performance levels between the tasks and the self-assessed performance. The fit for all

personality traits with this model, cannot be defined as the level of significance is higher than

0.005. As such, we can conclude by saying that personality might not be a good predictor of a

discrepancy between self-assessed performance and actual performance. However, this could be

explained due to the low number of participants, thereby affecting the validity and hence, the

significance value. Also, the self-assessed performance after the second test wasn’t recorded in

any form. By obtaining this data, the self-assessment by the participants after both tests could

indicate if there is a change in self-assessment after the first trial. This could lead to different

outcomes.

WORK PERFORMANCE 22

From the results of the second hypothesis we can infer, there is no significant interaction

between the difference in performance levels after providing feedback. Data with enough

significance in this area was not achieved. Therefore, we cannot measure if personality affects

this or not. The reason being that the p-value is greater than 0.05. Maybe have a larger sample

size might negate the issue. However, this is impossible to determine unless proven. Therefore,

further research is required to demonstrate if there indeed exists a relationship with personality.

The research does not focus on the broad possibilities regarding feedback. The feedback

to any situation can be delivered in multiple formats and solutions. This paper only used arbitrary

basic feedback in the positive and negative directions. Only a vigilance task was used to induce

stress to create cognitive fatigue similar to workplace situations. However, there are many

different types of workplaces. Each could experience different types of stress and workplace

situations. The method of providing feedback to employees. Might also be different and not just

an arbitrary positive and negative feedback. These elements of this research could be catered to

the specific variable of the elements mentioned above to increase specificity. Using a larger

sample of targeted participants can improve the overall reliability of the research. Since there

exists a cultural relationship to the preference of feedback, using different personality traits other

than the ones mentioned in the Big5 might lead to interesting observations.

However, if the results of the data analysis proved to be significant we could say that

during the process of giving feedback it is crucial to bear in mind feedback might be subject to

biases related to the leniency and halo effects, the central tendency error and the first impression

bias. Nonetheless, this could be counterbalanced by using assessments where the personality of

the employee is accounted for beforehand, a task that could be the object of future research on

the topic. When addressing employees at various times through appraisals, organizations could

WORK PERFORMANCE 23

provide feedback based on the personality of the employee. Motivational theory suggests that

developmental goals should be linked to feedback and rewards to increase the likelihood of goal

achievement (Cummings,1973). Performance appraisal (PA) systems (performance review) are

an integral part of most organizations as they have a high potential to enhance organizational

learning (Judge et al., 2002).

Expected outcomes of this paper could help improve performance for many people who

find themselves placed in occupations that are not ideally suited to their personality. It could also

help provide feedback in a way that is constructive and aligns with the preferences of employees.

This might translate in turn to higher satisfaction rates at the workplace.

Self-efficacy dwells in the beliefs on an individual’s ability in performing tasks in

behaving in a way that suggest the accomplishment of a goal or objective (Panadero et al., 2017).

The belief about an individual is impossible without self-assessment. It is then clear that self-

assessment is just an inherent section of the self-efficacy. Many a times, such type of self-

assessment is unreliable and informal but sometimes it is more formal. It is therefore clear that

self-assessment plays a vital role in self-efficacy regardless of the form it takes and hence, it

requires specific consideration. Self-assessment enables learning activities.

Employees in the training environment, having trained in the strategies of self-

assessment, which are self-regulatory acquires more knowledge hence have self-efficacy, which

is very higher. Other research relating to self-assessment and self-efficacy obtained that level of

self-efficacy just beyond the real ability seeming optimum for the achievement (Barrick et al.,

2001). Self-assessment in regards to the feedback created from the standards criteria against the

employees judging their performance leads to more confidence of the employees and enhancing

their belief on the ability for improvement.

WORK PERFORMANCE 24

From the results of the study, it is evident that self-assessment plays a major role in self-

efficacy. The interventions enhancing self-assessment, as shown in the paper, have a positive

effect on a student's or an employee's self-efficacy. Several assumptions made in the future

shows that when the difference of individuals get considered, the predictive rationality of the

self-efficacy dramatically shrinks (Panadero et al., 2017). For verification of the causal

dependence, there is a need for converging evidence. Considering the work performance, the

research shows a variation with the null hypothesis.

Conclusion: Generally, the research fulfilled its objectives through the identification of

various personalities among the respondents and how personality affects organizational

performance. Some personalities are showing a positive and significant association with the

performance of the organization and other personality types. The personality types have a

significant and positive effect on the performance of the organization. The findings propose the

self-assessment interventions have a great effect on the employees undergoing through the

training and self-efficacy. The positive effects differ depending on the personality types, meaning

the role of the measurement requires careful consideration in future research. The current review

also indicates that moderating variables like gender and some components of self-assessment

affect the effects on the self-efficacy of the organizational employees. Interventions of self-

assessment result into impacts of the self-efficacy in ladies compared to the self-efficacy men

employees. The review, therefore, supports that the intervention of the self-assessment may have

a positive impact on the employees’ and self-efficacy. Hence, there is a need for the increment of

knowledge through training in the workplace.

WORK PERFORMANCE 25

WORK PERFORMANCE 26

References

Audia, P. G., & Tams, S. (2017). Goal Setting, Performance Appraisal, and Feedback across

Cultures. In The Blackwell Handbook of Cross-Cultural Management (pp. 142–154).

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405164030.ch8

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS AND

JOB PERFORMANCE: A META-ANALYSIS. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x

Bernardin, H. J., & Beatty, R. W. (1984). Performance appraisal: Assessing human behavior at

work.( needs library)

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the

beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next?.

International Journal of Selection and assessment, 9(1‐2), 9-30.

Brett, J. F., & Atwater, L. E. (2001). 360° feedback: Accuracy, reactions, and perceptions of

usefulness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 930–942. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-

9010.86.5.930

Brockner, J. (1979). The effects of self-esteem, success-failure, and self-consciousness on task

performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1732–1741.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1732

Campbell, D. J., & Lee, C. (1988). Self-Appraisal in Performance Evaluation: Development

versus Evaluation. The Academy of Management Review, 13(2), 302.

https://doi.org/10.2307/258579

WORK PERFORMANCE 27

Carayon, P., Smith, M. J., & Haims, M. C. (1999). Work Organization, Job Stress, and Work-

Related Musculoskeletal Disorders. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors

and Ergonomics Society, 41(4), 644–663. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872099779656743

Cummings, L. L., (1973). An experimental field study of the effects of two performance

appraisal systems. Personnel Psychology, 26,489-502.

Daniel, R., (2001). Self-assessment in performance. British Journal of Music Education, 18(3),

215–226. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0265051701000316

Davis, R., (1991). Shipbuilders of the Venetian Arsenal: workers and workplace in the

preindustrial city. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

DeGregorio, M. B., & Fisher, C. D. (1988). Providing Performance Feedback: Reactions to

Alternate Methods. Journal of Management, 14(4), 605–616.

https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638801400410

Dickinson, T. L., (1993). 10/ Attitudes About Performance Appraisal. In Personnel Selection and

Assessment: Individual and Organizational Perspectives. Retrieved March 12, 2019, from

https://books.google.hu/books?hl=en&lr=&id=6uJNLfd78CkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA141&dq

=attitudes about performance

appraisal&ots=zA0RiIcvv2&sig=DPdGSD38h7Yg2OfZoqo5zetU7Rs&redir_esc=y#v=o

nepage&q=attitudes about performance appraisal&f=false

Dillard, M. B., Warm, J. S., Funke, G. J., Nelson, W. T., Finomore, V. S., McClernon, C. K., …

Funke, M. E., (2018). Vigilance Tasks: Unpleasant, Mentally Demanding, and Stressful

Even When Time Flies. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and

Ergonomics Society, 61(2), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720818796015

WORK PERFORMANCE 28

Elicker, J. D., Levy, P. E., & Hall, R. J. (2006). The Role of Leader-Member Exchange in the

Performance Appraisal Process. Journal of Management, 32(4), 531–551.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306286622

Folkmann, M. N., (2011). Encoding Symbolism: Immateriality and Possibility in Design. Design

and Culture, 3(1), 51–74. https://doi.org/10.2752/175470810x12863771378752

Hofstede, G., & McCrae, R. R., (2004). Personality and Culture Revisited: Linking Traits and

Dimensions of Culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 38(1), 52–88.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397103259443

Hounshell, David A. (1984), From the American System to Mass Production, 1800-1932: The

Development of Manufacturing Technology in the United States, Baltimore, Maryland:

Johns Hopkins University Press, ISBN 978-0-8018-2975-8, LCCN 83016269

Hutchison, S., & Garstka, M. L., (1996). Sources of Perceived Organizational Support: Goal

Setting and Feedback1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(15), 1351–1366.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1996.tb00075.x

Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on

behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4), 349–371.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.64.4.349

lgen, D. R., Peterson, R. B., Martin, B. A., & Boeschen, D. A. (1981). Supervisor and

subordinate reactions to performance appraisal sessions. Organizational Behavior and

Human Performance, 28(3), 311–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(81)90002-7

Jawahar, I. M. (2010). The Mediating Role of Appraisal Feedback Reactions on the Relationship

Between Rater Feedback-Related Behaviors and Rate Performance. Group &

Organization Management, 35(4), 494–526. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011103782

WORK PERFORMANCE 29

Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job

satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 530–541.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.530

Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-

analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 797–807.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.797

Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A

historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory.

Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254

Lang, F. R., John, D., Ludtke, O., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2011). Short assessment of the

Big Five: robust accros survey methods except telephone interviewing. Behavior

Research Methods, 43, 548-567.

Lloyd, C., King, R., & Chenoweth, L. (2002). Social work, stress and burnout: A review. Journal

of Mental Health, 11(3), 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638230020023642

London, M., Larsen, H. H., & Thisted, L. N. (1999). Relationships between Feedback and Self-

Development. Group & Organization Management, 24(1), 5–27.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601199241002

London, M. (2003). Job feedback : giving, seeking, and using feedback for performance

improvement. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mackworth, N. H. (1948). The breakdown of vigilance during prolonged visual search. Quarterly

Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 1, pp.6-21

McDonald, B., & Boud, D. (2003). The Impact of Self-assessment on Achievement: The effects

of self-assessment training on performance in external examinations. Assessment in

WORK PERFORMANCE 30

Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10(2), 209–220.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594032000121289

Migliore, L. A. (2011). Relation between big five personality traits and Hofstede’s cultural

dimensions. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 18(1), 38–54.

https://doi.org/10.1108/13527601111104287

Montgomery, J. L., & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions, teacher

self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language Writing,

16(2), 82–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.04.002

Semmer, N. K. (2011). Job stress interventions and organization of work. In J. C. Quick & L. E.

Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 299-318). Washington,

DC, US: American Psychological Association.

Truxillo, D. M., Bauer, T. N., & Erdogan, B. (2016). Psychology and Work: Perspectives on

Industrial and Organizational Psychology. New York: Psychology Press-Taylor &

Francis.

Warm, J. S., Parasuraman, R., & Matthews, G. (2008). Vigilance Requires Hard Mental Work

and Is Stressful. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics

Society, 50(3), 433–441. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008x312152

Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Botella, J. (2017). Effects of self-assessment on self-regulated

learning and self-efficacy: Four meta-analyses. Educational Research Review, 22, 74-98.

Stajkovic, A. D., Bandura, A., Locke, E. A., Lee, D., & Sergent, K. (2018). Test of three

conceptual models of influence of the big five personality traits and self-efficacy on

WORK PERFORMANCE 31

academic performance: A meta-analytic path-analysis. Personality and Individual

Differences, 120, 238-245.

WORK PERFORMANCE 32

Footnotes

[Add footnotes, if any, on their own page following references. For APA formatting

requirements, it’s easy to just type your own footnote references and notes. To format a footnote

reference, select the number and then apply the Footnote Reference. The body of a footnote,

such as this example, uses the Normal text style. (Note: If you delete this sample footnote, don’t

forget to delete its in-text reference as well.)]

WORK PERFORMANCE 33

Tables

Table 1.6

[Table Title]

Column Head

Row Head

123

Row Head

456

Row Head

789

Row Head

123

Row Head

456

Row Head

789

Note: [Place all tables for your paper in a tables section, following references (and, if applicable,

footnotes). Start a new page for each table, include a table number and table title for each, as

shown on this page. All explanatory text appears in a table note that follows the table, such as

this one. Use the Table/Figure style to get the spacing between table and note. Tables in APA

format can use single or 1.5 line spacing. Include a heading for every row and column, even if

the content seems obvious. To insert a table, on the Insert tab, tap Table. New tables that you

create in this document use APA format by default.]

WORK PERFORMANCE 34

Figure 1

WORK PERFORMANCE 35

Figure 1. [Include all figures in their own section, following references (and footnotes and

tables, if applicable). Include a numbered caption for each figure. Use the Table/Figure style for

easy spacing between figure and caption.]

For more information about all elements of APA formatting, please consult the APA Style

Manual, 6th Edition.

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Paper type

Deadline

Page count

550 words

Total price: $ 15.00

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Ian McGregor

UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Shannon Williams

Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."

Effect of personality on perceived work performance final with apa7676edited

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

Ian McGregor

Shannon Williams