Personality and job performance: the Big Five revisited.
By Gregory M. Hurtz, John J. Donovan. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2000
1,855 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Social Psychology
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e292d0bd50220ff170e3b4b4c4a7987b64fb47de
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Clinical Psychology
- T. Judge
- Jesús Salgado
- Gabriel Táuriz
- Deniz S. Ones
- Neal Schmitt
- R. Humphrey
- B. Roberts
- Murray R. Barrick
In Social Psychology
- T. Judge
- Adam M. Grant
- R. Humphrey
- R. Ilies
- H. Zacher
- Murray R. Barrick
- Arnold B. Bakker
- Stéphane Côté
Citations in the corpus
- Motivational and Skills, Social, and Self-Management Predictors of College Outcomes: Constructing the Student Readiness Inventory (2005, methodology): “…also included in the conceptual model, because it captures the construct of agreeableness, which has been found to be predictive of job performance (Farsides & Woodfield, 2003; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Tett et al., 1991) and turnover (Caligiuri, 2000; Saldago, 2002) in the organizational literature.”
- A Conditional Reasoning Measure for Aggression (2005, background): “To put a mean validity of .44 in perspective, consider that uncorrected empirical validities for single predictors against behavioral criteria rarely exceed .40 for aptitude measures and .30 for (primarily self-report) personality measures (see Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Mischel, 1968).”
- The Five-Factor Model, forced-choice personality inventories and performance: A comprehensive meta-analysis of academic and occupational validity studies (2014, methodology): “This coefficient is very similar to the validity coefficients found by Barrick and Mount (1991; Barrick et al., 2001), Hurtz and Donovan (2000), and Salgado (1997).”
- How similar are personality scales of the “same” construct? A meta-analytic investigation (2010, background): “In meta-analytic practice, it appears that reliability coefficients and their distributions are commonly taken completely or in part from information in test manuals combined across a variety of scales (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Dudley, Orvis, Lebiecki, & Cortina, 2006; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000).”
- Trait mindfulness at work: A meta-analysis of the personal and professional correlates of trait mindfulness (2017, background): “The utility of personality tests for personnel selection has been well documented (e.g., Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991); our results suggest that trait mindfulness is a strong correlate of personal and professional outcomes relevant to…”
- Correlational effect size benchmarks. (2015, background): “In addition, the manager considers recent uncorrected metaanalytic estimates for the Big Five personality traits: conscientiousness (r .14), emotional stability (r .09), agreeableness (r .07), extraversion (r .06), and openness to experience (r .04) (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000).”
- Investigating the influences of core self‐evaluations, job autonomy, and intrinsic motivation on in‐role job performance (2010, background): “…role of personality at work tends to be limited to the Big Five personality traits of neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1993; Caligiuri, 2000; George & Zhou, 2001; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 2006).”
- AN EXPLORATION OF MEMBER ROLES AS A MULTILEVEL LINKING MECHANISM FOR INDIVIDUAL TRAITS AND TEAM OUTCOMES (2005, positive): “Recent research has linked FFM personality dimensions with critical work behaviors (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000), including some studies specifically examining FFM traits in team settings (Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998; Barry & Stewart, 1997; LePine, Hollenbeck,…”
- Consumer perceptions of frontline service employee personality traits, interaction quality, and consumer satisfaction (2009, background): “In the workplace, agreeableness predicts better performance evaluations, especially in jobs involving interpersonal interactions, interpersonal trust in peers, collaborations with others, and customer service settings (Hurley, 1998a; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000).”