Extroversion and Neuroticism at work: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 3 by Camila Xu and Version 2 by Camila Xu.

The main aim of this research project was to determine the relationship that exists between autonomy at work and both burnout and job satisfaction, taking into account the moderating effect of the personality factors extroversion and neuroticism. The study was carried out with 971 volunteers (553 women and 418 men) with a mean age of 37.58 years. The majority had either a university degree (485 participants) or higher education qualifications (Spanish baccalaureate) (202 participants). The following instruments were administered: the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), to measure burnout among participants; the Mini International Personality Item Pool Scale (Mini-IPIP) by Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, and Lucas (2006) to measure the personality factors extroversion and neuroticism; the Brief Index of Affective Job Satisfaction (BIAJS) by Thompson and Phua (2012); and the Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ) by Karasek (1985) to measure autonomy at work. The results obtained indicate that those who enjoy greater autonomy at work have lower levels of emotional exhaustion. The stronger the effect is, the higher the score for extroversion. The personality factors studied were not found to have a direct influence on the criterion variables. However, the interaction effects were significant, except in the case of neuroticism. The results indicate that there are no differences between those who score highly for extroversion and neuroticism and the rest of the population in terms of predicting emotional exhaustion or job satisfaction. The present study aims to serve as a guideline for recruitment specialists, business owners, and job designers, encouraging them to take into account all these variables in order to foster the development of healthy and competitive organizations. Environmental moderators that could interfere with the result have not been introduced in this research. It has focused on the study of the personality factors of the workers, considering that the professional functions performed by the workers were similar. 

  • burnout
  • emotional exhaustion
  • performance
  • autonomy at work
  • job satisfaction
  • neuroticism
  • extroversion

1. Introduction

Ensuring health at work and promoting sustainable organizations are increasingly important challenges in today’s world. Within the field of health promotion, burnout is a variable that has attracted a great deal of attention over recent decades due to the changes that have occurred in work environments [1]. It is essential to understand what causes burnout and to determine the weight of its diverse factors in order to be able to predict it and design interventions focused on those variables that may foster its development. A better understanding of the phenomenon may also help establish satisfactory environments for both managers and employees.

Many studies have associated burnout with stress [2,3][2][3], and indeed, burnout can be defined as a chronic occupational stress syndrome [4]. It has also been shown that emotional exhaustion is the key element in burnout [5], making it imperative to find new ways of dealing with this phenomenon. Depersonalization and low levels of personal accomplishment are the other two components of the construct [1].

Some recent studies [6][7][8] [6,7,8] have found an inverse relationship between job satisfaction and burnout, although others which have explored this idea in more depth argue that it is in fact certain components of burnout, such as emotional exhaustion, which correlate closely with this variable [9]. Some authors have also found that the relationship between job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion is moderated by contextual variables linked to the work environment [10], thus highlighting the importance of moderator variables, which have been studied very little to date. These limitations highlight the need to develop broader models that reflect the complexity of the work environment.

The present study aims to assess the affective consequences of the work environment, which is why it focuses on emotional exhaustion, which has been shown to be a relevant factor in organizational processes [11].

To fully understand modern-day organizations, it is important to develop interaction models that include both dispositional and situational factors. In this sense, job demands–resources theory [12] emphasizes the importance of determining not only the job resources available but also the personal resources upon which the individual can call in order to cope with the demands of their profession. Specifically, job demands refer to any physical, psychological, organizational, or social aspect which requires an effort from the worker [13], whereas job resources are those physical, psychological, and organizational aspects of the job which may (a) reduce the demands of the job and their associated physiological and psychological costs, (b) be decisive in ensuring work-related goals are met, or (c) stimulate personal growth, learning, and development [12].

In accordance with this theory, it has been shown that demands are generally linked to processes associated with negative health outcomes or emotional exhaustion [14], whereas resources are linked to processes such as satisfaction and engagement [15], the latter is understood as the employee’s voluntary effort or commitment to the job. Moreover, demands and resources are related to job crafting that focuses on employee job redesign [16].

Recent research [17] [17] suggests that how the individual assesses the environment is a key aspect in determining their level of emotional exhaustion. Long working hours, lack of autonomy, and high levels of interference between work and home life are all factors that may impact employees’ mental health and exacerbate symptoms of emotional exhaustion. The specific nature of each work environment, as assessed by employees, is, therefore, a key factor in determining levels of emotional exhaustion.

For this reason, some companies are introducing innovations to reduce this problem. The job crafting technique facilitates the adaptation of the worker to the development of their professional tasks [18] [18] because it allows designing the job, adapting it to the way of working of the employee, based on their interests, strengths, and weaknesses. This work system allows reducing emotional exhaustion, increasing performance and productivity.

Karasek’s job demand–control model [19] [19] explains occupational stress in terms of the balance struck between the psychological demands of the job and the level of control perceived by the employee. The model postulates the existence of a significant relationship between occupational stress and health disorders, which are the result of a combination of high psychological demands at work and a low level of control over one’s job. It also posits that a high level of perceived social support reduces the effect of occupational stress, thereby mitigating its adverse consequences. Russell also found a positive correlation between autonomy and job satisfaction [20], and Juárez et al. (2014) concluded that employees’ control over their task was an effective predictor of their occupational health [21]. Autonomy and satisfaction, therefore, seem to play an important role in the development of occupational stress, and jobs can be categorized in accordance with these two factors.

However, the fact that a work environment may be potentially stressful does not necessarily imply that all employees will suffer from burnout. Each person manages stress and interprets the environment in which they work in accordance with the personality factors that characterize them and their own individual life experiences. Jiménez, Hernández, and Gutiérrez (2000) found that stress and burnout arise as a result of the interaction between variables pertaining to the work environment and those pertaining to the individual’s personality. Personality plays an important role in the origin and development of stress and burnout, with those who adopt adequate coping strategies being able to actively engage with their environment and modify it to their advantage [22].

Thus, situational factors may be interpreted differently by different individuals. In this study, individual personality differences are assessed using the big five personality trait model developed by McCrae and Costa (1985) [23]. According to this model, personality is made up of five large dimensions or factors: neuroticism, extroversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. In the field upon which we are focused here, several studies have reported a significant relationship between the extroversion and neuroticism factors and emotional exhaustion [24,25][24][25] and job satisfaction [9[9][26],26], while others have suggested that different relationships exist with job satisfaction, depending on each individual’s specific personality traits [27]. Consequently, we believed it would be interesting to include personality variables in this study. Job satisfaction is one of the most widely studied aspects of the work environment and, to date, significant relationships have been found between it and both occupational performance and occupational health [28], making it a key variable for the development of sustainable organizations.

In light of the above, this study proposes a comprehensive model encompassing both situational and dispositional variables in order to assess their impact on the dependent variables. The main aim of this research project is, therefore, to determine the relationship which exists between autonomy at work and both burnout and job satisfaction, taking into account the moderating effect of the personality factors extroversion and neuroticism. The concepts and variables included in the study are outlined below.

Autonomy at Work. Generally, employees’ control over their jobs has been measured using two different yet closely related theoretical sub-dimensions: creativity and authority to make one’s own decisions, which some authors refer to as autonomy at work [29,30][29][30]. The autonomy at work variable is linked to employees’ ability to influence organizational processes and make decisions.

Moreover, other studies have also highlighted how having greater control over one’s own job leads to greater job satisfaction and reduced stress levels [31]. It is, therefore, interesting to explore how personality traits moderate these relationships in order to come to a deeper understanding of how employees adapt to their jobs.

Emotional Exhaustion. From the beginning, authors studying burnout have posited that an imbalance between job demands and employee resources is a key factor in understanding the impact of the work environment [1]. Since the year 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) has considered burnout an occupational risk factor and has even highlighted its potential to put workers’ lives in jeopardy. Emotional exhaustion is one of the most important components of burnout and is characterized by loss of energy, fatigue, and the feeling of being worn out. In general, it has been defined as an inadequate means of coping with chronic stress [32]. Peiró (2005) [33] identified an absence of control by the worker as a key factor for understanding burnout, and Jiménez, Hernández, and Gutiérrez (2000) [22] [22] found that health status was closely linked to all the dimensions of burnout (emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and lack of accomplishment), but in particular to emotional exhaustion. Individuals who scored highly for a resilient personality had lower levels of emotional exhaustion. A resilient personality, therefore, seems to play an important role in reducing the likelihood of suffering from stress and burnout.

Gil-Monte, Peiró, and Valcárcel (1996) [34] [34] found that the dimension which most contributed to frequent feelings of burnout was emotional exhaustion. This finding is consistent with those reported by studies that, using the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), found that emotional exhaustion was the dimension that most impacted burnout [35,36,37][35][36][37]. Similarly, Portero and Vaquero (2015) [9] [9] concluded that emotional exhaustion was a significant variable in the development of burnout among workers.

Job Satisfaction. Job satisfaction is understood as a positive emotional state that reflects an affective response to one’s job and indicates how individuals feel in relation to the different aspects of their daily work. In short, it is an overall feeling about one’s job and the degree to which one likes it [38,39][38][39]. This affective component has been found to be very important in the study of organizations and team management [40]. The factors influencing job satisfaction include income level, work relations, and the employee’s level of control over the decisions that are made [41,42][41][42].

Occupational stress may affect workers’ mental health, thereby reducing their levels of job satisfaction [43]. Hosseinabadi et al. (2018) [27] [27] found a direct relationship between control over one’s job and job satisfaction, with having the authority to make decisions resulting in employees performing tasks more happily.

Job satisfaction is also linked to personality variables, such as motivational orientations [43]. We can, therefore, affirm that job demands and control have an impact on affective criterion variables (emotional exhaustion and job satisfaction) in accordance with the subject’s dispositional personality variables, which together determine the perspective from which the work environment is assessed [44].

Extroversion and Neuroticism. Many studies have linked personality traits to the way in which workers carry out their tasks, with the aim of optimizing employee performance [45,46,47,48,49,50,51][45][46][47][48][49][50][51]. Understanding this relationship is very useful for both recruiting members of staff and assigning them to positions that best fit their personality. It is generally accepted that there are five principal traits or factors that can be used to catalog the structure of each individual personality [52]. Norman (1963) labeled these five main personality factors extroversion, neuroticism, openness to experience, conscientiousness, and agreeableness, and a broad consensus has been reached regarding their validity in the field of personality assessment [53].

In the big five personality factor model, extroversion is the dimension that measures sociability. It is linked to positive strategies for coping with aversion, as well as to sociability, assertiveness, and activity [54]. In the world of work, it has been suggested that extroversion is a variable that predicts adjustment in jobs requiring interaction and cooperation. Several studies have explored the relationship between extroversion and burnout among employees, with Swider and Zimmerman (2010), for example, finding that those who scored lower for extroversion were more likely to experience this syndrome than those who scored highly [55]. Emotional stability is strengthened in extroverts, or those who enjoy interacting with other people, thereby boosting their resistance to burnout [56]. For their part, Meymandpour and Bagheri (2017) found that when employees worked mainly from home (teleworking), those scoring lower for extroversion were more likely to experience burnout [24].

In the big five personality factor model, neuroticism is the dimension that measures emotional instability. It is linked to anxiety, depression, irritability, worry, and insecurity and seems to be an effective predictor of performance in a wide variety of different jobs [54]. Some authors have found a close positive association between neuroticism and burnout [25], as well as an inverse relationship between neuroticism and job satisfaction [57].

It is interesting to explore the moderating role of extroversion and neuroticism in the relationship between autonomy at work, burnout, and job satisfaction since this may provide information about workers’ future job performance. Thus, the main aim of this research project is to assess the relationship between autonomy at work and both burnout and job satisfaction, taking into account the moderating effect of extroversion and neuroticism (Figure 1).

Ijerph 17 08166 g001 550

Figure 1. Study hypotheses.

The initial hypothesis on which the study is based is that interaction models that encompass both situational and dispositional variables will help researchers gain a fuller understanding of organizational dynamics. The working hypotheses proposed are as follows:

Hypothesis 1 (H1):

The negative relationship between autonomy at work and emotional exhaustion is moderated by extroversion.

Hypothesis 2 (H2):

The negative relationship between autonomy at work and emotional exhaustion is moderated by neuroticism.

Hypothesis 3 (H3):

The positive relationship between autonomy at work and job satisfaction is moderated by extroversion.

Hypothesis 4 (H4):

The positive relationship between autonomy at work and job satisfaction is moderated by neuroticism.

References

  1. Gil-Monte, P.R.; Moreno-Jiménez, B. El Síndrome de Quemarse por el Trabajo (Burnout). Una Enfermedad Laboral en la Sociedad del Bienestar; Pirámide: Madrid, Spain, 2005; pp. 36–37. [Google Scholar]
  2. Hobfoll, S.E.; Freedy, J. Conservation of resources: A general stress theory applied to burnout. In Series in Applied Psychology: Social Issues and Questions. Professional Burnout: Recent Developments in Theory and Research; Schaufeli, W.B., Maslach, C., Marek, T., Eds.; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 1993; pp. 115–133. [Google Scholar]
  3. Khamisa, N.; Peltzer, K.; Ilic, D.; Oldenburg, B. Effect of personal and work stress on burnout, job satisfaction and general health of hospital nurses in South Africa. Health Sa Gesondheid 2017, 22, 252–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Guedes, D.P.; Gaspar, E.J. Síndrome de estrés laboral crónico por el trabajo (burnout) en los profesionales de la educación física brasileños. Revista de Psicología del Deporte 2016, 25, 253–260. [Google Scholar]
  5. Martínez Ramón, J.P. Cómo se defiende el profesorado de secundaria del estrés: Burnout y estrategias de afrontamiento. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones 2015, 31, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  6. Yeh, T.P. The Relationship Between Personality and Job Stress, Burnout, Satisfaction and Resilience in Taiwanese Cancer Nurses. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Hull, Hull, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  7. Jiménez, A.; Jara, M.; Celis, E. Burnout, apoyo social y satisfacción laboral en docentes. Psicología Escolar e Educacional 2012, 16, 125–134. [Google Scholar]
  8. García Fernández, D.; Peña Trobat, M.; León Chaparro, E.; Camacho, B.; Mateos, A. Relación entre las dimensiones del síndrome de Burnout y los factores de satisfacción laboral. Reidocrea Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Docencia Creativa 2013, 2, 33–40. [Google Scholar]
  9. Portero de la Cruz, S.; Vaquero Abellán, M. Desgaste profesional, estrés y satisfacción laboral del personal de enfermería en un hospital universitario. Rev. Latino-Americana de Enfermagem 2015, 23, 543–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Alves, D.F.; Guirardello, E.B. Nursing work environment, patient safety and quality of care in pediatric hospital. Rev. Gaucha Enferm 2016, 37, e58817. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  11. Schaufeli, W.B.; Enzmann, D. The Burnout Companion to Study and Practice: A Critical Analysis; Taylor & Francis: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. La teoría de las demandas y los recursos laborales. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2013, 29, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Demerouti, E.; Bakker, A.B.; Nachreiner, F.; Schaufeli, W.B. The job demands-resources model of burnout. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86, 499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E.; Schaufeli, W.B. The socially induced burnout model. Adv. Psychol. Res. 2003, 25, 13–30. [Google Scholar]
  15. Gorgievski-Duijvesteijn, M.; Bakker, A. Passion for Work: Work Engagement Versus Workaholism. In Handbook of Employee Engagement; Edward Elgar: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  16. Tims, M.; Bakker, A.B.; Derks, D. Development and validation of the job crafting scale. J. Vocat. Behav. 2012, 80, 173–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Van den Broeck, A.; Ferris, D.L.; Chang, C.H.; Rosen, C.C. A review of self-determination theory’s basic psychological needs at work. J. Manag. 2016, 42, 1195–1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Llorente-Alonso, M.; Topa, G. Individual Crafting, Collaborative Crafting, and Job Satisfaction: The Mediator Role of Engagement. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2019, 35, 217–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Karasek, R. The Impact of the Work Environment on Life Outside the Job. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  20. Russell, M. The relationships among autonomy, job satisfaction and motivation. Honors Theses 2017, 23., 15–16. [Google Scholar]
  21. Juárez, A.; Vera, A.; Merino, C.; Gómez, V.; Feldman, L.; Hernández, E. Demand/Control Model and Mental Health in Health Professionals: A Study in Six Latin-American Countries. Información Psicoloógica. 2014, 108, 2–18. [Google Scholar]
  22. Jiménez, B.M.; Hernández, E.G.; Gutierrez, J. Personalidad resistente, burnout y salud. Escritos de Psicología Málaga 2000, 4, 64–77. [Google Scholar]
  23. McCrae, R.R.; Costa, P.T. Comparison of EPIand psychoticism scales with measures of the five-fac-tor theory of personality. Person. Individ. Differ. 1985, 6, 587–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Meymandpour, R.; Bagheri, Z. A study of personality traits, viz., extraversion and introversion on telecommuters burnout. Telecom Bus. Rev. 2017, 10, 1. [Google Scholar]
  25. Fornes-Vives, J.; García-Banda, G.; Frias-Navarro, D.; Pascual-Soler, M. Longitudinal study predicting burnout in Spanish nurses: The role of neuroticism and emotional coping. Person. Individ. Differ. 2019, 138, 286–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Harari, M.B.; Thompson, A.H.; Viswesvaran, C. Extraversion and job satisfaction: The role of trait bandwidth and the moderating effect of status goal attainment. Person. Individ. Differ. 2018, 123, 14–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hosseinabadi, M.; Etemadinezhad, S.; Khanjani, N.; Ahmadi, O.; Gholinia, H.; Galeshi, M.; Samaei, S. Evaluating the relationship between job stress and job satisfaction among female hospital nurses in Babol: An application of structural equation modeling. Health Promot. Perspect. 2018, 8, 102–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chiang Vega, M.M.; San Martín Neira, N.J. Análisis de la satisfacción y el desempeño laboral en los funcionarios de la Municipalidad de Talcahuano. Ciencia y Trabajo 2015, 17, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hackman, J.R.; Lawler, E.E. Employee reactions to job characteristics. J. Appl. Psychol. 1971, 55, 259–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Karasek, R.A.; Brisson, Q.; Kawakami, N.; Houtman, I.; Bongers, P. The Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ): An Instrument for Internationally Comparative Assessments of Psychosocial Job Characteristics. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 1998, 3, 322–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chiang Vega, M.M.; Riquelme Neira, G.R.; Rivas Escobar, P.A. Relación entre satisfacción laboral, estrés laboral y sus resultados en trabajadores de una institución de beneficencia de la provincia de Concepción. Ciencia y Trabajo. 2018, 20, 178–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Saborío, L.; Hidalgo, L. Síndrome de burnout. Med. Leg. De Costa Rica 2015, 32, 119–124. [Google Scholar]
  33. Peiró, J. Desencadenantes del estrés laboral (Psicología (Pirámide)); Pirámide: Madrid, Spain, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  34. Gil-Monte, P.R.; Peiró, J.; Valcárcel, P. Influencia de las variables de carácter sociodemográfico sobre el síndrome de burnout: Un estudio en una muestra de profesionales de enfermería. Revista de Psicología Social Aplicada 1996, 6, 43–63. [Google Scholar]
  35. Shiron, A.; Burnout in Work Organizations; En, C.L.; Cooper, Y.I. International Review of Indus-trial and Organizational Psychology; Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1989; pp. 25–48. [Google Scholar]
  36. Schaufeli, W.; Enzmann, D.; Girault, N. Measurement of Burnout: A Review. In Professional Burnout. Recent Developments in Theory and Research; Schaufeli, W.B., Maslach, C., Marek, T., Eds.; Taylor & Francis: Washington, DC, USA, 1993; pp. 199–215. [Google Scholar]
  37. Schaufeli, W.; Van Dierendonck, D. The construct validity of two burnout measures. J. Organ. Behav. 1993, 14, 631–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Belkelman, S. Job satisfaction. Cq Weekly 2004, 62, 2420–2423. [Google Scholar]
  39. Dinham, S.; Scott, C. Moving into the third, outer domain of teacher satisfaction. J. Educ. Admin. 2000, 38, 379–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Thompson, E.R.; Phua, F.T. A brief index of affective job satisfaction. Group Organ. Manag. 2012, 37, 75–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Fernández-Salinero San Martín, S.; Topa, G. Motivational Orientations and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: The Moderator Role of Perceived Discrimination in the Brexit Context. Behav. Sci. 2019, 9, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Faragher, E.; Cass, M.; Cooper, C. The relationship between job satisfaction and health: A meta-analysis. Occup. Environ. Med. 2005, 62, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. González, N. Prevalencia del estrés en la satisfacción laboral de los docentes universitarios. REDHECS Revista electrónica de Humanidades Educación y Comunicación Social 2008, 4, 68–89. [Google Scholar]
  44. Elliot, A.; Thrash, J. Achievement Goals and the Hierarchical Model of Achievement Motivation. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2001, 13, 139–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ghiselli, E.E. The Validity of Aptitude tests in personnel selection. Person. Psychol. 1973, 26, 461–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hauser, M.P.; García, H.D. Satisfacción y personalidad en trabajadores de salud Pública de Pueyrredón (San Luís, Argentina). Revista de Psicología Universidad de Antioquía 2017, 9, 9–26. [Google Scholar]
  47. Kramer Amit Bhave Devasheesh, P.; Johnson Tiffany, D. Personality and group performance: The importance of personality composition and work tasks. Person. Individ. Differ. 2014, 58, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Palaiou, K.; Zarola, A.; Furnham, A. The dark side of personality predicts positive and negative work attitudes. Person. Individ. Differ. 2016, 88, 12–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Schmitt, N.; Gooding, R.Z.; Noe, R.A.; Kirsch, M. Metaanalyses of validity studies published between 1964 and 1982 and the investigation of study characteristics. Person. Psychol. 1984, 37, 407–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Spain, S.; Harms, P.; LeBreton, J. The dark side of personality at work. J. Organ. Behav. 2014, 35, S41–S60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Strauser, D.R.; O’Sullivan, D.; Wong, A.W.K. Work Personality, Work Engagement, and Academic Effort in a Group of College Students. J. Employ. Couns. 2012, 49, 50–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Digman, J.M. Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1990, 41, 417–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Norman, W.T. Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 1963, 66, 574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Barrick, M.R.; Mount, M.K. The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Person. Psychol. 1991, 44, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Swider, B.; Zimmerman, R. Born to burnout: A meta-analytic path model of personality, job burnout, and work outcomes. J. Vocat. Behav. 2010, 76, 487–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Morán, C. Personalidad, afrontamiento y Burnout en profesionales de atención a personas con discapacidad intelectual. Revista Española sobre Discapacidad Intelectual 2005, 213, 30–39. [Google Scholar]
  57. McCann, S.J. US state resident big five personality and work satisfaction: The importance of neuroticism. Cross Cult. Res. 2018, 52, 155–191.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback