ABSTRACT.

200 Journal of Education for Business

n the present study, we compared the Big Five model of personali-

ty (agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, extraversion, open-ness; De Raad, 2000) and narrow per-sonality traits of business majors with other students. In recent years, there has been a growing body of research on personality traits that distinguish stu-dents in business majors from students in other majors, and a body of research differentiating business specialty areas. Much of this research is interpretable using Holland’s (1985, 1996) vocation-al theory. Holland’s central thesis was that people flourish in environments where there is a good fit between their personality and the environment in which they function. Whereas good fit can lead to satisfaction, longevity, and higher levels of performance, lack of fit leads to dissatisfaction, withdrawal, instability, and lowered performance (Holland, 1985). When Holland’s vocational theory is applied to academic majors by using personality traits, three inherent validity assumptions should be met:

1. There should be a logical relation between the personality trait and the major. For example, business is regard-ed as a major suitable for students with high scores on the enterprising construct (Rosen, Holmberg, & Holland, 1997) because it reflects a “preference for activities that entail the manipulation of

others to attain organizational goals or economic gain” (Holland, 1973, p. 16). 2. There are differences between majors regarding personality traits, usu-ally in a manner consistent with the meaning of the construct. 3. In any particular major, there are individual differences between students regarding personality traits and a posi-tive relation between traits and satisfac-tion of the individual in the major. In view of Holland’s (1985) continuity principle and life-span developmental research on the consistency of person-ality relations over time (e.g., Seifert, Hoffnung, & Hoffnung, 2000), we would also expect personality traits to meet these three assumptions to demon-strate similar consistencies in the occu-pational arena.

Noel, Michael, and Levas (2003) found that business majors “demon-strate personality traits that follow con-ventional stereotypes of their business vocations” (p. 156). Accounting, man-agement information, and marketing majors differ on outgoingness, abstract thinking, emotional stability, enthusi-asm, venturesomeness, imaginativeness, tension, and self-monitoring behavior. Filbeck and Smith (1996) observed that students majoring in finance have signif-icantly higher Myers-Briggs Type Indi-cator (MBTI) scores on extraversion, sensing, thinking, and judging. Nourayi and Cherry (1993) also used the MBTI

IABSTRACT. Using data from 347

undergraduate business majors and 2,252

nonbusiness majors at a large Southeast-

ern university, the authors drew on J. L.

Holland’s (1985) vocational theory and

investigated whether the 2 groups differed

on the Big Five model of personality (B.

De Raad, 2000; agreeableness, conscien-

tiousness, emotional stability, extraver-

sion, openness) and 4 narrow personality

traits. For business majors, the authors also

examined the relations between personality

traits and life satisfaction. Business majors

scored higher for conscientiousness, emo-

tional stability, extraversion, assertiveness,

and tough-mindedness, but they scored

lower on agreeableness and openness. All

of the traits except for agreeableness and

tough-mindedness correlated significantly

and positively with life satisfaction. The

authors discuss results in terms of similar

relations in business occupations and sup-

port of vocational theory.

Keywords: Big Five model, business

majors, Holland’s theory, life satisfaction,

narrow personality traits

Copyright © 2009 Heldref Publications

Personality Characteristics of Business Majors as Defined by the Big Five and Narrow Personality TraitsJOHN W. LOUNSBURY UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE

RYAN M. SMITH DUKE UNIVERSITY DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA

JACOB J. LEVY UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE

FREDERICK T. LEONG MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING

LUCY W. GIBSON RESOURCE ASSOCIATES, INC. KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE

March/April 2009 201

and found that students majoring in accounting were overwhelmingly (94%) categorized as judgers.

Research in this area has not kept pace with a major development in nor-mal personality research and theoriz-ing. A nearly universal consensus has emerged that all normal personality traits can be parsimoniously described by five broad traits, as termed by the Big Five model of personality (agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, extraversion, openness), which has been replicated across a wide range of set-tings (e.g., De Raad, 2000) and validated against many different criteria, includ-ing (a) job performance (Salgado, 1997), (b) job satisfaction (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002), (c) career success (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999), (d) life satisfaction (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998), and (e) academic performance (Lounsbury, Sundstrom, Loveland, & Gibson, 2003). However, in the present research, we could not locate any studies that examined the Big Five in relation to business majors.

Recently, researchers have contended that the Big Five taxonomy is too broad and that narrower personality constructs may contribute uniquely to the predic-tion of behavior, which has been verified in work and academic domains (e.g., Lounsbury, Sundstrom, et al., 2003; Pau-nonen & Ashton, 2001). In accordance, a second purpose of the present study was to investigate whether undergradu-ate business majors differed from non-business majors on narrow personality traits. For this purpose, we chose four narrow traits that are not components of the Big Five model but that have been linked to academic performance and the well-being of college students: asser-tiveness, optimism, tough-mindedness, and work drive (Lounsbury, Saudargas, Gibson, & Leong, 2005).

In addition, we examined whether these personality traits were related to the life satisfaction of business majors. DeNeve and Cooper (1998) noted that there is sound theoretical rationale and ample empirical evidence supporting linkages between life satisfaction and personality traits. Moreover, in Hol-land’s (1985) vocational model, individ-uals experience more satisfaction when there is correspondence between their

personality and characteristics of the environment in which they participate. Hence, we investigated whether the Big Five and narrow personality traits that we examined were related to the life satisfaction of business majors. In sum-mary, we addressed two main research questions.

Research Question 1 (RQ1): Do under-graduate business majors differ from nonbusiness majors in regard to the Big Five and narrow personality traits?

In view of the preliminary nature of the present study, directional hypoth-eses were not advanced.

RQ2: How are the Big Five and nar-row personality traits individually and jointly related to life satisfaction for undergraduate business majors?

We also examined the aforemen-tioned relations in terms of the meaning of each construct and whether simi-lar differences have been observed in the occupational arena for individuals working in business positions.

METHOD

Participants

Students who were enrolled in a 1st-year studies program (designed to help students adjust to academic life at the college level) and a career-planning workshop at a large public southeast-ern U.S. university volunteered to par-ticipate in the present study. Data were collected from a total of 2,599 under-graduate students. Of these students, 347 identified themselves as majoring in business. In all, 832 students were men, and 1,767 were women. In addi-tion, 2,131 of the participants self-iden-tified as White, 312 self-identified as Black, 53 self-identified as Hispanic, 52 self-identified as Asian, and 51 self-identified as Other. With respect to age, 52 were younger than 18 years, 2,157 were between 18 and 19 years of age, 78 were between 20 and 21 years of age, 53 were between 22 and 25 years of age, 51 were between 26 and 30 years of age, and 52 were older than 30 years of age.

Procedure

After obtaining approval from the university’s Institutional Review

Board, we solicited participants to take a personality inventory online. Stu-dents in an introductory psychology course were offered extra credit for participation.

Measures

We used the Resource Associates’ Adolescent Personal Style Inventory (APSI) for College Students (Loun-sbury & Gibson, 2008). Scale devel-opment, norms, reliability, criterion-related validity, and construct validity information for the APSI can be found in Lounsbury, Tatum, et al. (2003).

The following are brief descriptions of the personality traits measured by the APSI, along with the internal consis-tency reliability coefficients:

1. Agreeableness was defined as being pleasant, equable, participative, cooperative, and inclined to interact with others harmoniously (Cronbach’s α = .81).

2. Conscientiousness was defined as being reliable, trustworthy, orderly, de- pendable, organized, and rule-following (Cronbach’s α = .78).

3. Emotional stability was defined as the overall level of adjustment and emotional resilience in the face of stress and pressure. We conceptualized this as the inverse of neuroticism (Cronbach’s α = .83).

4. Extraversion was defined as hav-ing a tendency to be sociable, outgoing, gregarious, warmhearted, expressive, and talkative (Cronbach’s α = .84).

5. Openness was defined as receptiv-ity to learning, new experiences, novelty, and change (Cronbach’s α = .78).

The following are narrow personality traits:

1. Assertiveness was defined as speak-ing up on matters of importance, express-ing one’s views and feelings, defending one’s position, seizing initiative, being forceful, and exerting influence in social settings (Coefficient α = .77).

2. Optimism was defined as having an upbeat, hopeful outlook, especially con-cerning plans, prospects, people, and the future, even in the face of difficulty and adversity; a tendency to minimize problems and persist in the face of set-backs. (Coefficient α = .83).

202 Journal of Education for Business

3. Tough-mindedness was defined as appraising information and making decisions on the basis of logic, facts, and data rather than feelings, senti-ments, values, and intuition (Coefficient α = .79).

4. Work drive was defined as being hard-working, industrious, and inclined to put in long hours and time and effort to make good grades and achieve at a high level in school (Coefficient α = .85).

5. Life satisfaction was defined by following Lounsbury et al. (2005): We used a set of 15 items to measure life satisfaction (Coefficient α = .93).

RESULTS

Table 1 displays the mean values for the nine personality traits for business and nonbusiness majors and the inde-pendent t tests for significant difference between means and effect sizes (Cohen, 1977). Table 2 presents the correlations between the personality traits and life satisfaction for the business majors. As seen in Table 1, business majors achieved significantly higher scores than did nonbusiness majors for consci-entiousness, emotional stability, extra-version, assertiveness, and tough-mind-edness, but significantly lower scores on agreeableness and openness.

To assess RQ2, we performed a hier-archical multiple regression analysis. The Big Five traits were entered first as a set, followed by the narrow traits that were entered in stepwise fashion.

The Big Five traits accounted for 24% (p < .01) of the variance in life satis-faction, 3% (p < .01) of the variance in optimism, and 1.5% (p < .01) of the variance in work drive. Altogether, the Big Five and narrow personality traits accounted for a total of 29% of life sat-isfaction variance.

DISCUSSION

The present results indicate that undergraduate business majors differed from other undergraduate students on all of the Big Five personality traits. That business majors scored higher than nonbusiness majors for extraversion is consistent with literature on business success factors (De Janasz, Dowd, &

Schneider, 2002). Myers and McCaul-ley (1985) found that 8 of the 10 most extraverted jobs are in business. Also, Lounsbury, Loveland, et al. (2003) found that extraversion was higher for those in business occupations than for those in nonbusiness occupations.

That business majors scored higher for emotional stability than did nonbusi-ness majors is readily interpretable. As stress and pressure pervade the business world, emotional stability is an important functional attribute for people in busi-ness occupations and business majors. The U.S. Small Business Administration (2006) lists emotional stability as a key trait for effective managers and lead-ers. Also, Lounsbury, Loveland, et al. (2003) found that emotional stability was positively related to job and career satis-faction in business-related occupations. As pressure increases in all business sectors because of many factors—such as increased competition, globalization, labor-market deregulation, and socio-technological changes—the importance of emotional stability may also increase in the future.

That business majors scored higher for conscientiousness than did nonbusi-ness majors is understandable because success in nearly all, if not all, business jobs, enterprises, and careers involves conscientiousness-related activities such as organizing, goal setting, managing time, paying attention to detail, honor-ing commitments, adhering to rules and policies, and reliably meeting expec-tations (e.g., Hochheiser, 1998). Also, conscientiousness is related to job and career satisfaction for a variety of busi-ness occupations (Lounsbury, Loveland, et al., 2003).

Why business majors scored lower for agreeableness and openness than did nonbusiness majors is less obvious. The emphasis in most business schools on competition, grades, individual achieve-ment, and the pursuit of the bottom line in corporations may reduce an individ-ual’s inclination to be kind, generous, equable, and helpful to peers. Zhao and Seibert (2006) noted that “high levels of agreeableness may inhibit one’s willing-ness to drive hard bargains, look out for one’s own self-interest, and influence or manipulate others for one’s own advan-tage” (p. 263). Zhao and Seibert also

TABLE 1. Comparisons Between Business and Nonbusiness Majors for Study Variables

Business majors Nonbusiness majors

Variable M SD M SD t(2,383) Cohen’s d

Agreeableness 3.35 0.67 3.69 0.70 –8.73** 0.50Conscientiousness 3.57 0.67 3.42 0.66 3.83** 0.23Emotional stability 3.37 0.72 3.19 0.72 4.21** 0.25Extraversion 3.77 0.68 3.58 0.70 4.79** 0.20Openness 3.40 0.61 3.52 0.61 3.41** 0.20Assertiveness 3.61 0.76 3.38 0.86 3.06** 0.28Optimism 3.96 0.65 3.94 0.65 0.40 0.93Tough-mindedness 2.85 0.71 2.54 0.62 10.70** 0.47Work drive 3.22 0.66 3.17 0.66 1.21 0.08

Note. The independent samples t test compared the means for business and nonbusiness majors on each variable.**p < .01.

TABLE 2. Correlations Between Personality Traits and Life Satisfaction for Business Majors

Correlation withPersonality trait life satisfaction

Agreeableness .06Conscientiousness .22**

Emotional stability .43**

Extraversion .33**

Openness .13*

Assertiveness .27**

Optimism .41**

Tough-mindedness .04Work drive .25**

*p < .05. **p < .01

March/April 2009 203

noted that higher levels of agreeableness can be a “detriment to the careers of managers, apparently because it inter-feres with the manager’s ability to make difficult decisions affecting subordinates and coworkers” (p. 263).

The lower scores of business majors compared with nonbusiness majors for openness is not intuitively obvious in view of the general emphasis in busi-ness on such openness-related factors as innovation, change, continuous improve-ment, and globalization. Moreover, the content of many courses in the business curriculum is new and not something that most students encountered in high school or their freshmen year of college. Possible explanations for lower scores of business majors for openness may be derived from three findings: (a) open-ness is inversely related to conservatism (Van Hiel & Mervielde, 2004); (b) busi-ness majors tend to be more conserva-tive in their sociopolitical attitudes and behavior (Feldman & Newcomb, 1970); and (c) higher levels of conservatism have been observed among business-people (e.g., Wooldridge & Mickle-thwait, 2004) and faculty of business schools (Astin, 1993).

The relatively higher scores of busi-ness majors on assertiveness is con-sistent with Feldman and Newcomb’s (1970) finding that business majors score higher than do other majors on dominance, which is closely related to assertiveness. Also, assertiveness is regarded widely as an important attri-bute for success in any area of business (e.g., Michelli, 1997), especially in management and leadership positions (cf. Henman, 2006).

That business majors scored higher for tough-mindedness is consistent with long-standing findings in college stu-dent research that business majors score higher on values for pragmatic and eco-nomic values but lower on aesthetic, reli-gious, and theoretical values (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Moreover, tough-mindedness is associated typically with logical analysis and objective, bottom-line decision making in business contexts (e.g., Pipe & Mager, 1997).

As previously noted, one way to determine whether the personality traits that we studied have functional value for business majors is by look-

ing at their relation to life satisfaction. All but two of the traits—agreeable-ness and tough-mindedness—were positively related to life satisfaction for business majors, with medium effect sizes observed for the correlations with emotional stability, extraversion, and optimism. Although we previously pre-sented rationales for the other traits, optimism and work drive warrant sepa-rate discussion.

Dispositional optimism is widely regarded as an important factor for suc-cess in all aspects of life (Seligman, 1991), particularly in business (e.g., Templar, 2005). As noted by Heath-field (2006), “Optimism may be partly responsible for success in most aspects of life” and “its power cannot be over-rated as a factor” in business success (¶ 1). Lounsbury, Loveland, et al. (2003) found that optimism was one of the traits most highly correlated with job satisfaction and career satisfaction for several busi-ness occupations. Lounsbury, Loveland, et al. found work drive to be another one of the traits more highly related to job and career satisfaction. In addition, characteristics of individuals scoring high on work drive, such as consistently working hard, putting in long hours, and otherwise extending oneself for one’s job and career, are widely recognized as key factors for success in business (e.g., Elgin, 2006).

The results of the multiple regres-sion analysis affirmed and extended the importance of the Big Five model (cf. De Raad, 2000) and are consistent with studies relating the Big Five to subjec-tive well-being (e.g., DeNeve & Coo-per, 1998) and job satisfaction (Judge et al., 2002). The Big Five and narrow personality traits jointly accounted for nearly one fourth of the total variance in life satisfaction, an effect size of large magnitude (Cohen, 1977). From a developmental perspective, person-ality traits precede college activities and experiences, it is an open question whether variance in life satisfaction can be accounted for by factors other than personality traits, such as (a) the qual-ity of teaching, grades, and professors, (b) a sense of community, and (c) other factors that are believed to be impor-tant for the quality of life of college students (Astin, 1993). If personality

traits are confirmed to be determinative of collegiate life satisfaction, then it will be incumbent on future research-ers to show whether any other fac-tors—including class size and content, curriculum, advising, teaching style, quality of faculty–student relations, and GPA—have any impact on the satisfac-tion of business majors beyond their personality traits. It may be that the life satisfaction of business students is primarily determined by who they are before they start their program of study, rather than what they experience in their major or college in general.

The present results generally support Holland’s (1985) vocational model, especially for four personality traits: conscientiousness, emotional stability, extraversion, and assertiveness. For these traits, there were mean differ-ences between business and nonbusi-ness majors and a positive relation with life satisfaction, and the results were consistent with results for individuals working in a wide range of business occupations. In terms of broad dis-positional qualities that facilitate suc-cess, these traits may also be regarded as metaqualities (Pedler, Burgoyne, & Boydell, 1994) in that they may function as higher order attributes that underpin and facilitate the develop-ment of diverse forms of knowledge, skills, and competencies. For example, higher levels of extraversion may lead to (a) the development of public speak-ing, interactional, and social facilitation skills; (b) a broader network of busi-ness contacts and relationships; and (c) greater membership and participation in clubs, groups, and organizations.

Several directions for future research in this area would help to clarify the meaning and generalizability of the present findings, including whether students pursuing specialty areas in business differ on the Big Five and narrow personality traits. Also, future researchers in this area could disag-gregate majors that we consolidated under the term nonbusiness and make comparisons between business and other fields of study such as science, engineering, humanities, education, and other categories that higher educa-tion researchers have traditionally used (e.g., Feldman & Newcomb, 1970).

204 Journal of Education for Business

There is also a clear need for longitudi-nal investigation, particularly from the start to the completion of undergradu-ate study, through graduate study, and into the workforce.

CONCLUSION

The results of the present study indi-cate that business majors differ from nonbusiness majors on the Big Five traits and two narrow traits in ways that are consistent with Holland’s (1985) vocational theory and previous research on college students and business occu-pations. Such results could be useful from a practical standpoint in terms of advising college students considering a major in business and business majors planning their careers. From a theo-retical perspective, the present results enhance the current body of knowledge on the psychology of business majors and provide new applications of Hol-land’s (1985) vocational theory to the study of college student development.

NOTES

John W. Lounsbury is a professor at the Uni-versity of Tennessee, Knoxville and president of Resource Associates, Inc. His research interests involve the construct validation of school- and work-based personality measures he has created, including career-decidedness, extraversion, open-ness, agreeableness, optimism, conscientiousness, sense of identity, self-directed learning, optimism, and work drive.

Ryan W. Smith is the program director of Alumni and Executive MBA Career Services at Duke University. His research interests include career development, career planning, career iden-tity, executive coaching, and person–job fit.

Jacob J. Levy is an assistant professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. His primary area of research interest is the assessment of “nor-mal” personality traits using the Five-Factor Model of Personality. His most recent work involves appli-cations of this model to the prediction of perfor-mance-related stress in various groups including musicians, athletes, and businesspeople.

Frederick T. Leong is a professor at Michigan State University. His research interests include career development and work adjustment, man-agement of cultural diversity in organizations, occupational stress, culture and mental health, and cross-cultural psychotherapy.

Lucy W. Gibson is the vice president of Resource Associates, Inc. Her research interests include test validation, personality trait validation, and cognitive aptitude measurement.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John W. Lounsbury, Department

of Psychology, University of Tennessee, Knox-ville, TN 37996-0900, USA.

E-mail: jlounsbu@utk.edu

REFERENCES

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters most in col-lege? Four critical years revisited. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic.

De Janasz, S. C., Dowd, K. O., & Schneider, B. (2002). Interpersonal skills in organizations. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575.

De Raad, B. (2000). The Big Five personality fac-tors: The psychological approach to personal-ity. Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.

Elgin, J. (2006, June 22). Top 5 characteristics of successful franchisees. Retrieved June 22, 2006, from https://www.entrepreneur.com/fran-chises/buyingafranchise/franchisecolumnistjef-felgin/article60986.html

Feldman, K. M., & Newcomb, T. M. (1970). The impact of college on students (Vol. 1). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Filbeck, G., & Smith, L. (1996). Learning styles, teaching strategies, and predictors of success for students in corporate finance. Financial Practice and Education, 6, 74–85.

Heathfield, S. M. (2006). Leadership and man-agement success tips: Optimism—The power of optimistic thinking. Retrieved June 24, 2006, from http://humanresources.about.com/od/managementtips/qt/optimism_s1.htm

Henman, L. (2006, June 9). F2 leadership. Retrieved June 22, 2006, from http://ezineart-icles.com/?F2-Leadership&id=42167

Hochheiser, R. M. (1998). Time management. Hauppauge, NY: Barron’s.

Holland, J. L. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocation personalities and work envi-ronments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Holland, J. L. (1996). Exploring careers with a typology what we have learned and some new directions. American Psychologist, 51, 397–406.

Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job sat-isfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530–541.

Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The Big Five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621–652.

Lounsbury, J. W., & Gibson, L. W. (2008) Resource Associates adolescent personal style inventory. Knoxville, TN: Resource Associates.

Lounsbury, J. W., Loveland, J. M., Sundstrom, E., Gibson, L. W., Drost, A. W., & Hamrick, F. (2003). An investigation of personality traits in relation to career satisfaction. Journal of Career Assessment, 11, 287–307.

Lounsbury, J. W., Saudargas, R. A., Gibson, L. W., & Leong, F. T. (2005). An investigation of broad and narrow personality traits in relation

to general and domain-specific life satisfaction of college students. Research in Higher Educa-tion, 46, 707–729.

Lounsbury, J. W., Sundstrom, E., Loveland, J. M., & Gibson, L. W. (2003). Intelligence, “Big Five” personality traits, and work drive as pre-dictors of course grade. Personality and Indi-vidual Differences, 35, 1231–1239.

Lounsbury, J. W., Tatum, H., Gibson, L. W., Park, S. H., Sundstrom, E. D., & Hamrick, F. L., et al. (2003). The development of a Big Five ado-lescent personality scale. Psychoeducational Assessment, 21, 111–133.

Michelli, D. (1997). Successful assertiveness (Barron’s business success guides). New York: Barron’s.

Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Man-ual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Noel, M., Michael, C., & Levas, M. G. (2003). The relationship of personality traits and self-monitor-ing behavior to choice of business major. Journal of Education for Business, 78, 153–157.

Nourayi, M. M., & Cherry, A. A. (1993). Account-ing students’ performance and personality types. Journal of Education for Business, 69, 111–115.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 524–539.

Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., & Boydell, T. (1994). A manager’s guide to self development (3rd ed.). London: McGraw-Hill.

Pipe, P., & Mager, R. F. (1997) Analyzing perfor-mance problems. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.

Rosen, D., Holmberg, K., & Holland, J. (1997). The educational opportunities finder. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of per-sonality and job performance in the European Community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 30–43.

Seifert, K. L., Hoffnung, R. J., & Hoffnung, M. (2000). Lifespan development. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1991). Learned optimism. New York: Pocket Books.

Templar, R. (2005). The rules of work: The unspo-ken truth about getting ahead in business. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

U.S. Small Business Administration. (2006). Growing and managing your business: Lead-ership. Retrieved June 14, 2006, from http://www.sba.gov/smallbusinessplanner/manage/lead/serv_ldrtraits.html

Van Hiel, A., & Mervielde, I. (2004). Open-ness to experience and boundaries in the mind: Relationships with cultural and economic con-servative beliefs. Journal of Personality, 72, 659–686.

Wooldridge, A., & Micklethwait, J. (2004). The right nation: Conservative power in America. London: Penguin.

Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E. (2006). The Big Five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial sta-tus: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 259–271.

ADVERTISING SPACE NOW AVAILABLE�������������������������������������������������������������������

���������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������������������������

��������������������������������������������������������

������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������

������������������������������

������������������

�����������������������������������

�����������������������������������

�������������������������������������

����������������������������������������

���������������������������������������

�������������������������������������������������������������������������

�������������������������������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������������������������������������

��������������������

��������������������������������������������������������������������������

��������������������

���������������������������������

��������������������������������

�����������������������������������������������������������

�������������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������������

��������������������������������������������