Person. mdmd. Drtf Vol. 7. 30 4. pp. J53459. 1986 0191-8869 86 S3.00 + 0.00 Pnnted ,n Gear Entam Pergamon Journals Ltd

PERSONALITY AND JOB SATISFACTION

ADRIAN FURNHA.LI and MARION ZACHERL

Department of Psychology, Universrty College London, 26 Bedford Way, London WCI. England

(Received I2 July 1985)

Summary-This study set out to examine the relationship between the dimensions of extraversion. neuroticism and psychoticrsm, and various dimensions of job satisfaction in a group of computer employees. Whereas Extraversion and Lie scores correlated positively with all aspects of job satisfaction. Neuroticism and Psychoticism scores correlated negatively with a third of the correlations being significant. However, there was little evidence of the hypothesized P-E fit between personality and job type though this may be due to classificatory and methodological problems. Results are discussed in terms of the necessity of considering personality variables in studres of job satisfaction.

INTRODUCTION

Locke (1984) in an overview of the literature on job satisfaction has noted: “Job satisfaction has been one of the most intensively studied subjects in the field of industrial and organizational psychology. Literally thousands of books and articles have been written on it” (p. 93). Textbooks on job satisfaction have tended to look at the nature of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction, and the relationship between job satisfaction and the nature of the job itself (autonomy, variety), environmental factors (pay and benefits, co-workers and supervision) and individual differences (sex, race, age and class) (Gruneberg, 1976). When concerned with individual difference factors in job satisfaction most researchers have concentrated on demographic rather than personality factors.

However, there are numerous reasons to expect personality differences in relation to job satisfaction. British research on successful businessmen (Eysenck, 1967) and entrepreneurs (Lynn, 1969) has established that they tend to be stable introverts. However, as Wilson (1981) has argued, this may not be true in America where extraversion is a more positively valued characteristic. Also Henney (197.5) has argued that the size of an organization and different management functions (i.e. production, sales, personnel) might moderate the relationship between personality and job aptitude. Bass and Barrett (1981) have noted that those who experience low job satisfaction tend to be poorly socially adjusted, with few personal relationships and minor psychiatric symptoms. That is, job satisfaction appears to be related to mental health (neuroticism) though the direction of causality is unclear. There are also a number of studies on cognitive or ‘belief’ variables- particularly locus of control-as they related to different aspects of organizational behaviour (Hammer and Vardi, 1981). Spector (1982) has argued that locus of control is related to job motivation, effort, performance, satisfaction, perception of the job, compliance with authority and supervisory style. Overall people with internal locus of control tend to be more satisfied than people with external locus of control (Organ and Greene, 1974; King, Murray and Atkinson, 1982).

There are also a limited number of studies on personality variables per se. For instance Cooper and Paynes (1967) in a study of 81 female tobacco packers found that extraverts tended to have higher levels of non-permitted absence and more visits to the sick bay than introverts. Further a follow-up study a year later found a much greater proportion of the extraverts had left their job. Both results are explained in terms of Eysenck’s arousal theory and the needs for stimulation by extraverts in boring jobs. Blunt (1978) found personnel managers had higher neuroticism scores than finance or production managers. Further the sales and marketing managers were most extraverted and the technical and transport group most introverted. Hence he concluded that the extraversion dimension may be particularly useful in predicting job satisfaction. Skinner (1983) looked at the relationship between machiavellianism, extraversion and toughmindedness in business occupations. As predicted he found business high machiavellians were significantly more extraverted than their non-business counterparts, which confirms the belief that successful entrepreneurs are skillful in public relations. Indeed experimental studies on human performance

453

have demonstrated the importance of personality (particularly arousal-based dimensions) variables (Geen. 1983; Strelau. 1983) many ofwhich are no doubt related to all aspects ofu-ork. For instance Hockey (1972) reviewed the evidence which suggests cxtraverts prefer and work best in noisy environments while the opposite is true of introverts.

However, most of the (limited) work on personality and job satisfaction has been restricted to examining a limited number of personality variables as they relate to o\-era11 job satisfaction, The first aim of the present study was to examine the relationship bettveen Eysenck’s (1967) well-established three basic personality dimensions-extral.ersion. neuroticism and psychoticism- and various dimensions of job satisfaction. Nearly all attempts to examine and measure job

satisfaction have concluded that it is multidimensional (Argyle. 1983; Baron. 1983). Hence it was decided to use a robust and reliable multidimensional job satisfaction measure which yielded specific as well as an overall job satisfaction score. It ~vas predicted that extraversion would correlate posi:ively bvith most dimensions of job satisfaction iespecially amount of work, co-ivorkers and overall job satisfaction) while neuroticism (and psqchoticism) would correlate negatively with most dimensions of job satisfaction (especially supervision. amount of work and kvorking conditions).

The second aim of this study was to examine the role of person(ality)-job fit with special reference to Eysenck’s personality dimensions. The idea of P&E fit has been around a long time in the psychological literature (Pervin, 1968) and provokes a great deal ofresearch in organizational and occupational psychology (Cooper, 1983; Furnham and Schaefer. 1953). Considerable evidence has suggested that career change, labour turnover, performance and motivation are associated with P-E fit (Kasl, 1973). van Harrison (1978) has su,, ODested that there are two kinds of P-E fit: the extent to which an individual’s skills and abilities match the requirements of the job he or she is doing, and also the extent to which the job environment provides the resources to meet the needs of the individual. Misfit of either kind can threaten the individual’s uell-being and may result in various adverse effects upon his/her health and job satisfaction. The coping strategies that may be employed by an individual to reduce his/her job stress include changes in the objective person (personality) or environment in order to improve the fit between the two. The individual may also use defence mechanisms to distort the individual’s perception of P-E fit or to deny the experience of job stress altogether. Use of these coping procedures may reduce strain and overcome the problems involved, but if the measures are unsuccessful the stress effects, which are additive, may lead to long-term problems such as poor health, low self-esteem and job satisfaction.

In fact studies in the P-E fit tradition have considered neuroticism and extraversion as

personality variables. Costa, McCrae and Holland (1984) found that personality dispositions showed consistent and strong associations with vocational interests as defined by Holland’s theory which specifies six types (Holland, 1973). For instance neuroticism was positively correlated with artistic occupations in men and negatively correlated with social occupations in women. Extra- version, on the other hand, was strongly positively correlated with enterprising occupations in both men and women, and negatively correlated with conventional occupations. They note that there

is reason to believe that many aspects of occupational behaviour, especially job satisfaction, are influenced by neuroticism.

This study set out to examine the interaction or fit between personality and job satisfaction in the computer industry. With the expansion of computer industries such as electronic data processing for solving business problems by using computer applications in the 1960s and 1970s a ithole new group of job specializations has groun up to support this new industry. The basic requirements have developed as follows.

(I) Examination of specific business problems in order for some definitive statement of a problem to be made, prior to selecting alternative solutions.

(2) Evaluation of the computerized solution. (3) Implementation of a computerized solution. Job profiles in the data-processing industry thus

tend to reinforce the follo\ving categorizations: Function 1 has fallen to one of two groups-a business anaLj>sl responsible for both computerized and manual systems or a systems analyst whose skills are more closely associated with computer solutions; Function 2 has fallen to the systems analyst or more technically-oriented job specialist; Function 3 to the systems designer, dealing with the design of the computer system and the programnler dealin g with the detailed implementation

Personality and job satisfaction 455

in terms of computer code. If the functions were to be described in hierarchiacal terms Function 1 would be seen to be the higher, and Function 3 the lower level.

A collective title for people fulfilling Functions 1 and 2 IS systems analyst. He or she is responsible for investigating business and organizational problems in order to make a definition of the problem and factors influencing it. A large part of this involves the collection, organization and understanding of information and the way the company, or part of it, operates. The analyst is required to have social and communication skills allowing him or her to deal easily with people at all levels of the organization. Following the analysis of a problem, a specification is produced, recommending either a manual solution or a computer system or possibly both. The function of the analyst as described above does not explicitly require the technical ability necessary for evaluation of the computerized solution. However the close affiliation of the analyst with the data-processing department and a possible career progression from a technical background may mean that the analyst does have at least some of the technical skills. The detailed design and programming of the solution is given to the technical specialist. The nature of the programming task includes attention to details, lack of ambiguity, exhaustive testing for correctness, closely constrained by the clearly defined and precise syntax of the programming language and capability of the particular computer, calls for persistence and patience. The test phases and debugging can be long and tedious. A consistent performance is expected of the programmer involved in this task. Introverted personalities are thought to perform better on these tasks than extraverts who are expected to fluctuate and show less consistency (Eysenck, 1967, 1971). The work environment is technical rather than social. After production of the system it is the analyst’s job again to introduce and explain it to its users. This will involve presentations to management, training of personnel and co-organization of the launch of the new system. Thus skills of persuasiveness, ability to convince the people affected to accept a new computerzied method, negotioating and communication skills will be essential.

It was therefore predicted that analysts would more likely be extraverted and programmers introverted. Furthermore, it was predicted that extraverted analysts and introverted programmers would be more job satisfied (on specific as well as overall measures) than introverted analysts and extraverted programmers. It was also predicted that the Neuroticism and Psychoticism scales would yield main effects rather than interactions, with those scoring high on both scales being less satisfied than low scorers. However it was thought that neuroticism and psychoticism in analysts may lead to slightly more job dissatisfaction than in programmers.

METHOD

Subjects

In all 88 Ss, 69 male and 19 female, participated in this study. They ranged in age from 22 to 53 yr, the mean age being 30 yr. All Ss were senior staff members in positions of responsibility in a large multinational computer firm. The sample comprised programmers, designers and analysts. Of the Ss 49 were British, 14 Germans, 12 Scandinavians and 5 from southern Mediterranean countries but all spoke, read and wrote perfect English. They were all attending a training seminar relating to their work in data processing.

Materials

Each questionnaire had three parts: (I) Index of Organisational Reactions (IOR; Smith, 1976, 1977). This is a 42-item scale, each of

which has five possible responses. The index offers a measure of seven aspects or factors of job satisfaction, as well as an Overall Satisfaction score. The measure was specifically designed to be used at all levels in the organization, constructed to reduce positive skewing of responses and contains items covering affective reactions as well as the perceived relationship between job features and work performance. The measure has been subject to a fairly impressive psychometric assessment (Dunham, Aldag and Brief, 1977) and many other studies have used all or some of the items from the index in experimental studies (Cook, Hepworth, Wall and Warr, 1981).

(1) Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ; Eysenck and Eysenck, 1975). This is a 90-item, yes/no personality questionnaire that provides four scores per S: Psychoticism, Extraversion,

156 ;\~RI.AS FURSHAM and \lmos ZACHER~

Neuroticism and Lie. The questionnaire has undergone continuous assessment and revision for over 30 yr. It is one of the most extensively used and thoroughly assessed personality inventories in social and clinical psychology (Eysenck and Zuckerman, 1978: Furnham, 19Sl).

13) Job Function Questionnaire (JFQ; Zackerl. 1984). This questionnaire was designed specifically to obtain information about the Ss’ daily activities in order to classify them appropriately. One section asked how much time was spent on computer analysis design and programming, respectively; a second section consisted of inquiries about their job function; and the third section which skills they believed they required for their job. The questionnaire was designed with specific

knowledge of the company and job skills.

Procedure

Subjects were asked to participate in a study on job satisfaction, either by the seminar leader, or the second author. They were given a letter explaining the study and an envelope to ensure total anonymity. The EPQ was completed in class (results given in Table 1) and the other two questionnaires in their own time. Ss who completed all the questionnaires were debriefed.

RESULTS

Correlational analysis

Firstly a series of correlations were computed between the four personality factors and the eight job satisfaction factors. Table 2 shows the 32 correlations. Two things stand out dramatically from Table 2. The first is the size of the correlations which are by-and-large low. Only 4 of the 32 (12.5%) were 2 0.30 and 12 (37.5%) were significant at P < 0.05. Secondly with very few exceptions (two in all) the pattern of correlation is dramatic. Both the Psychoticism and Neuroticism scales correlate negatice/y with ail subscale scores while both E.ytraversion and the Lie scale correlate positively with all the subscale scores. People with high Psychoticism scores (toughminded) tended to be significantly less satisfied with their supervisors, the nature of the work and their co-workers than people with low Psychoticism scores (tenderminded). People with high Neuroticism scores (unstable neurotics) tended to be fairly highly significantly less satisfied with the amount of work they were required to do, their co-workers and their pay. But it was the Lie scale-a measure of social desirability-which in fact yielded the most and the biggest correlations.

Overall the two job satisfaction factors-Co-workers and Pay-correlated with three of the personality dimensions, while two other factors-Nature of the Work and Amount of Work- correlated with two of the personality dimensions. Curiously two job satisfaction factors-Working Conditions and Future of the Organization-did not correlate significantly with any of the

Table 2 C~rr.A~r~ons between the iobur psrsonahty ~ICUSUXS and rhe tight Job sa~sf~t~on factors (.V = 85)

Psrsonaliry scale

I. Superwsion

1. Nature of the Work

3. Amount of Work

J. Working Conditions

5. Co-workers

6. Pay

7. Futurr with ihs Org~mrrlt~on

8 O\crall Job Sarirfxtron

-0.17’ 001 -0.11 0.15

-0.21’ 0.1 I -0 I-l 0 32”’

-0.01 0.10 -0 33”’ 028”

-0 05 0 IO -0.08 0 IO

-0.19. 0.05 -0 31*** 0 21’

001 0.20’ -0 29.’ 0.36**’

-0.07 0 04 -0.01 001

-0.03 0 IS’ - 0.06 0.10

‘P < 0 05, l *f < 0.01: l “P < 0 001

A large number of partial correlations were computed parttalltng out orwdt-d-tune and rhcn in combmation all oiher

personality duncnsions when examlmng Ihe relationship between one dlmcnsion (1.e. e’ttra>errion) and job satisfaction.

,l’nnr of thr anal>sss substannally changed the s+$icancc levels of the abore results

Personality and job satisfaction 451

personality dimensions. Similarly Overall Job Satisfaction yielded only one significant (positive) correlation with Extraversion. However the salience of the various dimensions no doubt depends on the job being considered.

Analysis of variance

Firstly the JFQ was analysed to classify people into either programmers (score = 1) or analysts (score = 2). This consisted of correlating all the JFQ items and taking those highest correlating items only and devising an arithmetically computed score which was divided at the mean. The correlation between Extraversion and the JFQ was r = 0.20 which is just significant (P < 0.05) so confirming the hypothesis. Thereafter the Extraversion, Neuroticism and Psychoticism scores were divided at the mean into high and low scorers. This permitted a series of 2 x 2 ANOVAs (job function x personality) to be computed on each of the eight job satisfaction scores derived from the Smith scale.

Surprisingly none of the interactions were significant when examining introverted and extra- verted analysts and programmers. However it was demonstrated in one significant main effect that programmers were more satisfied with their co-workers, irrespective of whether they scored high or low on the Extraversion scale (F = 6.95, df l/84, P -c 0.01). The Psychoticism scale did yield more significant differences but no interactional effects. Both high and low scoring analysts on the Psychoticism scale reported being less satisfied with the amount of work that they are expected to do, compared to the programmers (F = 3.74, df l/84, P < 0.05). The Co-worker subscale yielded two main effects: analysts were less satisfied with their co-workers than programmers (F = 8.87, df l/84, P < O.OOS), and Ss with high Psychoticism scores were significantly less satisfied than low scoring Ss (F = 6.33, df l/84, P < 0.005).

Neuroticism also yielded various significant main effects. Non-neurotics were significantly more satisfied with the amount of work than neurotics (F = 6.65, df/ l/84, P < 0.05) but there was no significant difference between the two work groups and no significant interactions. Analysts were on the whole less satisfied with their co-workers than programmers (F = 4.94, df l/84, P < 0.05) and non-neurotics tended to be more satisfied than neurotics but this trend did not reach significance. Non-neurotic workers, of both occupational groups, were significantly more satisfied with their pay (F = 3.99, df l/84, P < 0.05) than their non-neurotic colleagues.

DISCUSSION

The first part of this study demonstrated a set of modest, but consistent, correlations between personality and job satisfaction within one particular occupation. People scoring highly on the Neuroticism and Psychoticism scales tended to have lower job satisfaction scores on all dimensions, particularly the Co-workers subscale. Of course, being a correlational study it is impossible to infer the direction of causation: it could be that unstable and toughminded people tend to be unhappy at this (any) job or that job dissatisfaction leads to decrease in mental health. It is however interesting to note that the Lie score yielded so many and such high correlations. This may simply be an experimental artifact-that is dissimulators lie about the amount of job satisfaction that they experience. On the other hand it may be that high Lie scorers who may be more naive or strictly socialized do experience more satisfaction than their low scoring peers.*

Overall, however, the correlations between personality and job satisfaction were very modest. This could be due to two reasons. The first may be artifactual: that is because of the limited, relatively homogeneous sample, or the psychometric limitations of the job satisfaction scale the correlations were suppressed. On the other hand personality may relate much more closely to job satisfaction when considering the relationship between, rather than within, occupations. That is, all theories of vocational choice, and P-E fit, tend to describe broad personality types and job types arguing that satisfaction results from a fit and dissatisfaction from a non-fit (Furnham and Schaeffer, 1984). This study looked at the job satisfaction of a number of personality types within one specific operation, that has not been classified within the personality dimension framework.

*It should be pointed out that the pattern of significant correlations remained the same even after the Lie scores were partialled out which suggests that the results are not merely artifactual and confounded by social desirability.

What appears to be necessary is a careful. psychometrized classification of professions into the three-dimensional Eyssnck i 1967) personality theory framework. Clearly the major reIc\,anl

dimension is that of oxtracersion-introversion as various work performance theories have emphasized the importance of arousal on performance. Of course arousal may be a function of the work conditions (complesity. novelty. variety, difficulty) an individual’s personality (extra- version) or temporary emotional state (anxiety, fatigue). Any theory of personality and satisfaction which employs the concept of arousal (extraversion) needs a set of hypotheses relating occupational tasks to an individual’s arousal level, and hypotheses relating arousal levels to satisfaction, That is, arousal is the mediating variable between personality and job satisfaction.

Personality, particularly extraversion, may prove a much more powerful discriminating variable with regard to job choice than job satisfaction. Because people choose jobs hopefully congruent with their personalities, and are chosen for the potential fit between their abilities. needs, personability and the job characteristics, those in jobs are likely not to have widely diKerent personality characteristics. Therefore selection has already taken place for people at work which

has presumably considerably reduced personality heterogeneity. Thus the relationship between personality and job satisfaction is likely to be subtle and relatively small.

The second part of this study proved only modestly successful. As predicted analysts were more extraverted than programmers. Although there was no significant difference overall between analysts and programmers in job satisfaction, those statistics which yielded significant difference suggested that on the whole programmers tend to be more satisfied than analysts. There is evidence in the literature that ‘good’ programmers are usually promoted to analysts. This promotion often does not bring about the desired results. Promoted programmers do not perform as well as analysts as they did as programmers. Recognizin g this problem IBM attempted to give parallel career paths for analysts and programmers. This suggests that there are differences between the requirements for the two job categories. The notion of the ‘promoted programmer’ could also explain the fact that programmers tend to be more satisfied: those promoted programmers, who are now called analysts may experience less proficiency in their new job. They are now forced to show different behavior patterns. namely those associated with extraversion. As they are taken out of an environ- ment in which they functioned well, they may encounter a great deal of stress, while trying to adapt to the new requirements. This stress might manifest itself in their tendency to be less satisfied than programmers. One of the significant findings was that programmers were more satisfied with their co-workers than analysts. This can possibly be explained by the fact that programmers work together on one solution. Analysts may have to persuade their co-workers, the end user of the system, to accept solutions which they resent. This could cause confrontations, vvhich may be reflected in low job satisfaction with co-workers.

There may be various artifactual and methodological reasons why the second part of the study failed to yield many significant main effects or interactions. These include an insensitive measure of job function, a fuzzy distinction between programmers and analysts and a very’ homogeneous sample. Nevertheless the results from both parts of this study suggest the role of personality in

job satisfaction cannot be ignored.

REFERENCES

.~r~~l~ Xl. t 1983) The Socmi Ps~choiog~, of Work. Penguin. Harmondsworth. Mddx. Baron R. (1983) Behar~uctr in Orggunical~ons. Allyn & Bacon, Boston, Mass. Bass B. and Barrett E. (1981) People, IV’ork and Orgnnizaiions. Allyn & Bacon. Boston, Mass. Blunt P (1975) Personality characteristics of a group of white South African managers: some implications for placement

procedures. Int. J. Px~choi. 13, 139-116 Cook J . Hepworth S.. IVail T. and Warr P. (1981) The E.rperience of Work. Academic Press. Oxford. Cooper C. (1933) Stress Research: lsmrs for rhe 80’s. Wiley, Chichester, Sussex. Cooper R. and Payne R. (1967) Extraversion and some aspects of waork behaviour. Persom. Ps_vchol. 20, 45-57. Costa P.. \lcCrae R. and Holland J. (195-t) Personality and vocational interest in an adult sample. J. uppi. P.s,x4oi. 69,

390-400. Dunham R.. Aldag R. and Brief ,A. (1977) Dimensionality of task design as measured by the Job Diagnostic Survey. Acaci.

.vTr J 20, 209-223. Eysenck H. J. (1967) 711~ Bwl11~icui 5rr.s~ o/- Personalir~. Thomas, Springfield. III. Eysenck H. J (197 I ) Rrc~dmps m E.\-iruir.ers;on-lniro~ersion II. Fields of Application. Staples. London. Eysenck H J. and Eysenck S. 8. G. (1975) E~sencX- Personaiiri Quesrionnaire ~Manunl. Hodder & Stoughton, London. Eysenck S. B. G. and Zuskerman Xl. (1978) The relationship between sensation-seekin, 0 and the Eysenck dimrnsrons of

personality. Br. J. P.s.:ci:oi. 69. -M-4Si

Personality and job satisfaction 459

Furnham ,A (19YI) Personahty and acrtvity preference. Br. J. sot. PsychoI. 20, 57-68. Furnham h. and Schaffer R. (1981) Persowznvironment fit. Job satisfactton and mental health. J. occq Ps~chol. 57,

Y-307. Gem R. t 198-t) Preferred stimulation levels in Introverts and extraverts: effects on arousal and performance. J. Person. wc.

Psschol 46. I303- I3 12. Gruneberg >I. (1976) JoD Saiisfacrion-A Reader. Wtley. ?*‘ew York. Hammer T. and Vardi Y. (198 I) Locus of control and career self-management among supervisory employees in industrial

setttngs. J. L‘OCUI. Behor 18, 13-29. can. R. Harrtson (1978) Person+nvironment fit and job stress. In Srress a~ J+‘oork (Edited by Cooper C. and Payne R.).

Wiley, Sew York. Henney .A. (1975) Personality charactertstics of a group of industrial managers. J. occup. Pswhoi. 48, 65-67. Hockey G. (1972) Effects of noise on hyman efficiency and some individual differences. J. Sound Vibr 20, 299-304. Holland J. (1973) .LfaX-ing Yocarw~al Choices: a Theory of Careers. Prentice-Hall, Englewood ClitTs. N.J. Kasl S. (1973) hlental health and the work environment: an examination of the evidence. J. occup .\fed. 15. 509%jl8. King M., Murray &i. and c\tkinson T. (1982) Background, personality, job characteristics, and satisfaction \birh work in

a national sample. Hum. R&r. 35, 119-133. Locke E. (1984) Job satisfaction. In Social Psychology and Organizarionnl Eehatiour (Edited by Gruneberg \I. Jnd Wall

T.). Wiley. New York. Lynn R. (1969) Personality charactertstics of a group of entrepreneurs. Occup. PsychoI. 43, 151-152. Organ D. and Greene C. (1974) Role ambiguity, locus of control, and work satisfaction. J. appl. Psxhol. 59. 101~102. Pervtn L. (1968) Performance and satisfaction as a function of individual-environment fit. Psycho/. Bull 69. 56-68. Skinner N. (1983) Personality correlates of machiavellianism. Sot. Behar. Person. 1 I, 29-32. Smith F. (1976) Index of Organizational Reactions. JSAS Cur. Sel. Docum. Psychol. 6, No. 1265. Smith F. (1977) Work attitudes as predictors of attendance on a specific day. J. appl Psyhol. 62, 16-19. Spector P. (1982) Behaviour in orgamzations as a function of employee’s locus of control. Ps,t~hoi. Buii. 91, 482L497. Strelau J. (1983) A regulative theory of temperament. Ausr. J. Psychol. 35, 305-317. Wilson G. (I98 I) Personality and social behaviour. In A Mode/for Personalrry (Edited by Eysenck H. J.). Springer-Verlag,

Berlin. Zackerl M. (1984) The Job Function Questionnaire. Unpublished paper.