Personality Traits in Organizational Behavior: Research Review
This paper evaluates the future research agenda proposed by Judge, Klinger, Simon, and Yang (2008) in light of their critique of personality research within organizational behavior. It examines how developments such as meta-analysis and the five-factor (Big Five) model have advanced the field, while also acknowledging persistent criticisms regarding validity and self-report faking. The paper then extends this evaluation by proposing an empirical research direction, drawing on Sternberg's Triarchic Theory of Intelligence and related scholarship to explore how personality trait assessment can be refined to improve employment decision-making, ultimately benefiting human resource practitioners and job seekers alike.
- Introduction: Personality Research in Organizational Behavior: Overview of criticisms and growing evidence supporting personality research
- Key Evidence Supporting Personality Trait Research: Three landmark developments advancing personality research in OB
- Criticisms and Ongoing Controversies: Validity concerns and self-report faking undermine personality measures
- Gaps in Knowledge and the Dark-Side Traits Problem: Dark-side traits and under-researched conditions for trait functionality
- Why Further Research on Personality and Employment Matters: High-stakes hiring decisions demand better-validated personality tools
- Complementing Existing Knowledge Through Empirical Research: Sternberg's Triarchic Theory and tailored personality-based strategies
- Conclusion: Who Benefits and How: HR practitioners gain from refined personality assessment understanding
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Grounds every claim in specific citations, integrating direct quotations from Judge et al. (2008) to anchor analytical points with authoritative evidence.
- Moves logically from a broad literature evaluation (Part 1) to a focused research proposal (Part 2), giving the paper a clear two-stage argumentative structure.
- Balances support for personality research with honest acknowledgment of its limitations, creating a nuanced rather than one-sided argument.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of critical synthesis: it does not merely summarize Judge et al. but evaluates how well the authors' proposed research agenda addresses their own identified criticisms. This technique — holding a source accountable to its own stated standards — is a hallmark of graduate-level analytical writing.
Structure breakdown
Part 1 reviews the state of personality research in organizational behavior, outlines three landmark developments, presents supporting evidence, and then catalogues the two primary criticisms. Part 2 builds on that foundation through three focused sub-questions: the importance of the research topic, how empirical inquiry can add to existing knowledge (drawing on Sternberg's Triarchic Theory), and who stands to benefit from new findings. The paper closes with practical implications for human resource professionals.
Introduction: Personality Research in Organizational Behavior
According to Judge, Klinger, Simon, and Yang (2008), the various criticisms directed at early organizational behavioral theories have been countered by a growing body of evidence that supports these fundamental precepts. Judge et al. report that three main pieces of evidence have been particularly influential in rehabilitating personality research within organizational behavior.
Despite the criticisms leveled at the use of personality traits for human resource research and planning, the research to date supports this practice because personality has consistently been shown to be relevant to individual attitudes and behavior, as well as team and organizational functioning (Judge et al., 2008). An excerpt from their literature review makes this clear: "Personality traits do matter at work, and indeed, the data appear to support [this] conclusion" (p. 1983). Notwithstanding this growing body of evidence, Judge et al. also note that not everyone is convinced of the efficacy of personality research for organizational behavior applications. As Judge and his associates emphasize, "Perhaps the most intensive application of personality research in organizational settings, and arguably the most controversial, has been in relation to job performance. One reason for this interest — and controversy — concerns the role of personality testing in hiring decisions" (p. 1983).
References
Chen, J-K., & Chen, I-S. (2008, Fall). How can institutes of technology change successfully? A discussion from a human resources perspective. Business Renaissance Quarterly, 3, 85–88.
Judge, T. A., Klinger, R., Simon, L. S., & Yang, I. W. F. (2008). The contributions of personality to organizational behavior and psychology: Findings, criticisms, and future research directions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1982–2000.
McTurk, C., & Shakespeare-Finch, J. (2008, Autumn). Barriers to employment: Personality and cognitive predictors of employment status. Australian Journal of Career Development, 15(1), 10–15.
Rost, J. (2002, January 1). When personality questionnaires fail to be unidimensional. Psychologische Beiträge, 44(1), 108–121.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press. In McTurk & Shakespeare-Finch, p. 12.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.