416:
more likely to put in effort towards achieving these goals, and, consequently, will be more likely to attain their goals. Self-concordant goals include goals that focus on intrinsic factors. For example, a person pursuing a self-concordant goal will choose a goal that they feel is personally important, and that they will enjoy. Social goals can be linked to helping individuals create reasonable job satisfaction. Good social goals such as accessible location, good support, good well-being, good rewards, convenience, and equipped resources are linked to increased job satisfaction. An increased satisfaction from the individual can be linked to further productivity for an organisation. On the other hand, goals that are non-self-concordant will focus on more external factors. A person who chooses a non-self-concordant goal will focus on avoiding negative emotions (e.g., anxiety or guilt), satisfying someone else's wishes, or on external rewards, like money. Judge, Bono, Erez, and Locke (2005) found that goal congruence, or choosing self-concordant goals, partially mediates the relationship between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction. The authors explain that individuals with positive self-regard (i.e. high core self-evaluations) believe themselves to be capable and competent and will be less likely to be affected by external factors; thus, they will be more likely to choose self-concordant goals, which will lead to higher satisfaction. On the other hand, individuals with negative self- regard will be susceptible to external factors like anxiety and guilt. These people will be more likely to pursue non-self-concordant goals and will report lower job satisfaction.
425:
because they are confident they have the ability to do so. Another theory suggests that the link between core self-evaluations and performance can be attributed to supervisors enjoying the positivity of high CSE individuals and, thus, rating them highly on performance measures. Lastly, literature has argued that high CSE could be an ability factor. This last theory stems from intuitions made about core self-evaluations from previous connections found in literature. For example, literature has connected the construct of positive self-concept, an idea similar to core self-evaluations, to the ability to cope well with organizational change. Furthermore, individual core self-evaluation traits like emotional stability have been linked to job performance in team settings (Mount, Barrick, & Stewart, 1995 as cited in). Finally, it is suggested that those with a positive self-concept will be likely to perform well in customer service settings due to their positive emotional displays. These findings support the possibility that high core self-evaluations could indicate a person who has the ability to cope well with organizational change, to work well in groups, and to display positive emotions, all of which contribute to better performance.
390:
model, known as the action mediation model, suggests that individuals' respective levels of core self-evaluations influence the actions they take to obtain work with the proper job characteristics. According to this model, those with high core-self evaluations will be more likely to seek out job environments that allow them to make positive conclusions about their work. In other words, those who have positive appraisals of themselves (i.e. high core self-evaluations) will be more likely to search for and obtain jobs that have the necessary job characteristics and will consequently have high job satisfaction. The action mediation model also explains that an individual high in core self-evaluations may take more action to alter the characteristics of a job he or she has already obtained. For example, high core self-evaluation individuals may be more likely to seek feedback than low core self-evaluation individuals and, thus, will perceive higher levels of feedback at their job and higher job satisfaction.
407:
core self-evaluations and job satisfaction. Specifically, job complexity partially mediates the relationship between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction, such that a high CSE individual with a complex job will be more likely to be satisfied with their job. Similar to job characteristics, there is more than one explanation for this relationship. It could be that people high in core self-evaluation are attracted to more complex jobs because they see an opportunity for greater intrinsic rewards. However, it could also be the case that those with high core self-evaluations simply perceive higher complexity in their jobs. Judge et al. (2000) measured job complexity using job titles and confirmed both of these explanations; finding that individuals with high core self-evaluations not only perceived higher job complexity, but were also more likely to hold complex jobs, which led to higher job satisfaction.
386:(significance), extent to which they receive productive feedback from their job (feedback), and the extent to which they feel they are allowed to make their own decisions at their job (autonomy). These characteristics play an important role in influencing the relationship between an individual's core self-evaluations and their satisfaction with their job. Studies have found that perceived job characteristics partially mediate the relationship between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction. In other words, a person who appraises themselves positively (i.e., has high core self-evaluations) and has acquired a job which encompasses the aforementioned characteristics of identity, variety, significance, feedback, and autonomy, will be more likely to be satisfied with the job.
398:
on the relationship between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction. Using the perception mediation model, this suggests that people high in core self-evaluations will perceive their job as more important to others and, therefore, will be more satisfied. On the other hand, this study acknowledged that another explanation could be that those with high core self-evaluations are confident in their actions and will seek out more ambitious goals, which will lead to higher perceived meaningfulness, and later, higher job satisfaction. This is the explanation the action mediation model would suggest. More than likely, it is a combination of the two models that explains the role of job characteristics in the relationship between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction.
492:
relationship. In other words, an individual high in core self-evaluations will be more likely to capitalize on the advantages given to them via their families economic success or through their own academic achievements and will consequently be more likely to be financially successful later on in life. The authors explain that individuals high in core self-evaluations cope better with events and situations they encounter in life and are motivated to consistently increase their performance and thus, are more likely to capitalize on the educational and financial advantages they already possess in young adulthood. This will allow them to have greater economic success, as measured by their income, in mid-life.
288:) – are able to predict. Some argue that trait indicators of core self-evaluations are the same as various conceptualizations of the neuroticism component of the Big Five. Although it is true that some definitions of neuroticism include all four CSE traits, the Big Five does not refer explicitly to self-esteem in the description of neuroticism, nor is self-esteem one of the facets of neuroticism in their model. Therefore, the conceptualization of neuroticism in the Big Five is more narrow than in core self-evaluations. Additionally, no existing neuroticism scales measure self-esteem. Furthermore, measures of neuroticism include only descriptive questions and do not contain an evaluative component.
373:
dispositional predictor of job satisfaction. Since the creation of this construct in the Judge et al. (1997) study, research has continued to support the relationship between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction, which suggests that people who appraise themselves positively (i.e., rate themselves highly on core self-evaluations) are more likely to be satisfied with their jobs. Additional research has also confirmed that CSE traits can predict job satisfaction over time. People who have positive core-self evaluations are likely to be satisfied with their jobs throughout the duration of their lives spent in the work environment.
234:
job outcomes; however, until this time, these traits' predictive powers had only been studied in isolation. When studied together, Judge et al. (1997) discovered that these four traits would form a broader personality trait called core self-evaluations, which could predict job satisfaction better than each individual trait could when examined alone. In other words, relative levels of each of these four traits in an individual can be explained by one broad underlying trait; core self-evaluations. Furthermore, combining these traits allowed for better prediction of job satisfaction, and later, a variety of other outcomes.
480:
individuals with high core self-evaluations will be more likely to obtain higher levels of income. This could be because those high in the CSE trait seek out better jobs, which offer opportunities for upward mobility and thus, higher income. The effect could also occur as a function of the relationship between core self-evaluations, motivation, and performance. High core self-evaluations are indicative of a person who will be highly motivated to perform competently, which will lead to better performance, and later, perhaps, a higher salary.
81:) represent a stable personality trait which encompasses an individual's subconscious, fundamental evaluations about themselves, their own abilities and their own control. People who have high core self-evaluations will think positively of themselves and be confident in their own abilities. Conversely, people with low core self-evaluations will have a negative appraisal of themselves and will lack confidence. The concept of core self-evaluations was first examined by Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997) and involves four personality dimensions:
301:, the tendency to primarily experience either positive or negative emotional states, has frequently been studied as a correlate of job satisfaction. Although affective disposition does influence job satisfaction, a measure of positive or negative affectivity does not explain unique variance in job satisfaction beyond that explained by the individual core self-evaluations of self-esteem and neuroticism. In fact, measures of core self-evaluations explain significant variance in job and life satisfaction not explained by the PA/NA scales.
243:
of personality psychology argue that specific traits have been proposed and studied without considering that these traits have a broad, common core. Many such traits correlate so highly that they should be considered measures of the same construct, which is the case with the four traits of core self-evaluations. These traits are very closely related, and each one only predicts a small portion of job satisfaction by itself. However, when combined into one core trait (i.e., core-self evaluations), their predictive power increases.
151:, is defined as an individual's estimate of his or her own ability to perform well and handle a variety of situations. Although an individual can differ in levels of self-efficacy across different domains, generalized self-efficacy is the global estimate of ability across a wide range of situations, and can be considered a stable trait. Individuals high in generalized self-efficacy are more likely to take on new tasks that allow for growth in their ability and are more persistent than those low in generalized self-efficacy.
471:
work tasks because they lack the ability or control. For this reason, those with low core self-evaluations will be more susceptible to job burnout than those with high core self-evaluations, who appraise themselves positively and have confidence in their ability to manage the situation. This is particularly important because of job burnout's consistent relationship with voluntary turnover behavior (e.g., individuals choosing to leave the job), which is very costly for all organizations.
650:
is composed of or predicted by its four dimensions. In other words, an individual's levels on each of these traits may predict their level of core self-evaluations as opposed to the other way around. This conceptualization difference has important implications for how CSE is measured and, thus, has important implications for the effects found when researching this construct. For this reason, additional research is necessary to examine this conceptualization discrepancy.
434:
capabilities or out of their control, thus unmanageable. This will lead to low motivation and, consequently, poor performance. High CSE individuals, on the other hand, will be highly motivated to complete challenging tasks because they believe they have the ability and control to complete the tasks successfully. Consequently, high CSE individuals with high motivation will be more likely to perform better in their jobs than low CSE individuals.
97:. The trait developed as a dispositional predictor of job satisfaction, but has expanded to predict a variety of other outcomes. Core self-evaluations are particularly important because they represent a personality trait which will remain consistent over time. Furthermore, the way in which people appraise themselves using core self-evaluations has the ability to predict positive work outcomes, specifically,
636:
agreed that it was less self-oriented than the other variables because it has an external dimension, it became a part of the theory for two primary reasons: 1) Its scale measured many self-oriented items, and 2) because it was conceptually and empirically related to generalized self-efficacy (a meta-analysis confirms a correlation of .56, one of the lowest correlations between CSE traits).
25:
394:
perceive less job autonomy and thus, have lower job satisfaction because they believe outside forces control their lives. On the other hand, those high in the CSE trait will likely perceive higher job autonomy because they believe they control their own environment and will, consequently, also perceive higher job satisfaction.
606:
centralized strategic decision-making process, greater organizational persistence in pursuing strategies launched by the executive). Additionally, because those with high core self-evaluations are likely to have more confidence in themselves and believe that they control their own environment, hyper-CSE may also result in
526:(i.e., interactions between leaders and members). High levels of CSE also enhances team social networks, which in turn increases team effectiveness. Along with conscientiousness, high CSE predicted a more positive judgment of team effectiveness and ability (i.e., high collective efficacy), which in turn leads to improved
640:
suggested that dispositional optimism may not be distinct from neuroticism or other dispositional traits. Future research should examine the theory more empirically and provide a distinction of how broad, fundamental, and evaluative a trait must be in order to be included in core self-evaluations research.
649:
Previous studies have theorized that CSE is an underlying (i.e., latent) trait that explains the relationship between locus of control, neuroticism, self-efficacy, and self-esteem. However, it has also been suggested that core self-evaluations can be conceptualized as an "aggregate construct," which
389:
There have been various theoretical explanations for this mediation relationship addressed in the literature. Primarily, it is suggested that the relationship between core self-evaluations, job characteristics, and, thus, job satisfaction can be explained by two possible mediation models. The first
550:
is the process an organization uses to choose the appropriate individual to hire for a job position. Due to its direct relationship to job satisfaction and job performance, it seems logical that core self-evaluations should be included in personnel selection methods. In fact, researchers do support
506:
Women raised with an authoritarian parenting style developed negative core self-evaluations, which caused them greater difficulty in making a career decision later in life. High CSE relates positively to vocational identity (i.e., commitment and exploration into one's identity as a worker), which is
470:
stems from stress at work. A person suffering from burnout is exhausted, cynical, and lacks motivation. Similar to job stress, job burnout has also been related to the core self-evaluations construct. Individuals with low core self-evaluations will consistently feel that they are unable to handle
424:
Job performance is another consistent and important outcome of core-self evaluations. Many theories have developed regarding how the CSE trait is related to job performance; the most popular of these theories argues that people with high core self-evaluations will be more motivated to perform well
406:
The job characteristic studies primarily focus on perceived job characteristics, which are measured subjectively. Nevertheless, it has also been shown that objective measures of job characteristics, such as how challenging a job is (i.e., job complexity) can also influence the relationship between
397:
Lastly, a 2009 study by Stummp et al. expands on previous research of the core self-evaluation, job characteristic, and job satisfaction mediation relationship by examining which job characteristic is most important for this link. This study found that task significance had the strongest influence
376:
Job satisfaction is an outcome of core self-evaluations that has become well-established throughout psychological literature. However, Judge et al. (1997) suggest that researchers investigate other variables that may influence this relationship. In response, subsequent literature began to examine
372:
One of the more consistent and significant relationships that has been examined in the literature is the relationship between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction. In fact, when Judge et al. (1997) developed the construct of core self-evaluations, they did so in an effort to identify a valid
242:
Locus of control, neuroticism, generalized self-efficacy, and self-esteem have many conceptual similarities, but beyond stating that the similarities exist, these traits were rarely studied together until their integration into the common underlying trait of core self-evaluations. Many researchers
514:
and cynicism, both of which are related to job satisfaction. Those with high CSE tend to perceive and seek out greater levels of support, allowing them to effectively manage multiple life roles (e.g., their role at home, their role at work, etc.). Even when perceived organizational support is low,
233:
Using the above characteristics, four well studied personality traits; locus of control, neuroticism, generalized self-efficacy, and self-esteem, were chosen as possible dispositional predictors of job satisfaction. Each trait had previously presented as a relatively powerful predictor of various
214:
An evaluative trait is one that involves a fundamental value judgment about oneself, rather than a simple description ("I am confident and worthy," vs. "I am ambitious"). Job satisfaction is itself an evaluation that people make about their jobs; therefore, an individual's evaluations, especially
571:
of core self-evaluations against minorities or older employees. Adverse impact describes a practice that disproportionally affects members of a minority group. These research findings suggest that core self-evaluation levels do not differ disproportionally in older employees or minority groups,
415:
Goal congruence also plays a role in influencing the relationship between one's core self-evaluations and the satisfaction one has with one's job. The theory behind goal congruence argues that people who choose self-concordant (i.e., congruent) goals will be happier with the goals they pursue, be
122:
construct indicates a tendency for individuals to attribute life's events to their own doing or to outside forces beyond their control. There are two basic classifications of locus of control: internals and externals. Internals believe they control their own environment whereas externals believe
639:
Other traits like dispositional optimism, a tendency to believe that things will turn out positively, were also considered but later not included. The reasons behind this decision are not clear, but include the fact that this construct is not as well represented in literature. It has also been
630:
The theory behind the core self-evaluations construct is abstract. It posits that a person's own fundamental evaluations can influence most other appraisals they make about their self and their environment. For this reason, it is difficult to empirically test the CSE trait and its subconscious
221:
A fundamental trait, also called a source trait, is one that is basic and underlying. Fundamental traits together cause broader "surface" traits, and affect all other more specific evaluations. For example, self-doubt and frustration are considered to be source traits that commonly predict the
635:
Locus of control was originally not included in the list of traits that would make up core self-evaluations. It was added as a consideration later because "it generally meets the criteria set forth by Judge et al. (1997)" of being a core self-evaluation trait. Later, although some researchers
479:
Judge and Hurst (2007) conducted a longitudinal study that assessed core self-evaluations in relation to income level in individuals as young adults and later as they entered mid-life. The authors found that core self-evaluations have a positive relationship with income level. In other words,
605:
Although CSE is generally thought to be a positive trait, hyper-CSE (i.e., very high levels of core self-evaluations) can lead to negative outcomes. Hiller and
Hambrick (2005) suggest that hyper-CSE, common in executives, can lead to tainted decision making (e.g., less comprehensive and more
538:
Core self-evaluations have primarily been studied with two of the most important work outcomes: job satisfaction and job performance. Due to the consistent relationships between core self-evaluations and these outcomes found in the literature, it is important to examine the implication these
393:
The second model, the perception mediation model, suggests that individuals with high core self-evaluations will be more likely to perceive higher levels of the appropriate job characteristics than individuals with low core self-evaluations. For example, those low in the CSE trait will likely
433:
Despite the variety of theories, motivation is generally the most accepted mediator of the core self-evaluations and job performance relationship. Previous literature suggests that those with negative self-appraisals (low CSE) will see a difficult task and determine that it is beyond their
134:
is an enduring tendency to experience unpleasant emotions (e.g., anger, anxiety, depression) easily. Those high in neuroticism react more negatively to stress, are prone to anxiety, and susceptible to feelings of helplessness. Neuroticism, when examined as part of core self-evaluations, is
491:
as predictors of economic success later in life. Previous literature has confirmed that if you grow up in an affluent family and have a higher degree of education, then you will be more economically successful. Judge and Hurst (2007) found that core self-evaluations could strengthen this
310:
Previously, attempts to measure the CSE trait were indirect, requiring the trait to be extracted from the four scales that measured each individual trait. However, a direct core self-evaluation scale, the CSES, has recently been developed and proven both reliable and valid. Although some
385:
Job characteristics are attributes of the job that people traditionally find important, including the extent to which they identify with the tasks they are doing (identity), the extent to which they are assigned diverse tasks (variety), extent to which they feel their work affects others
197:
The situational and interactionist approaches had received a majority of the support in previous literature. Acknowledging this disparity, core self-evaluations were developed in an effort to increase exploration of the dispositional approach to job satisfaction.
228:
A trait which is large in scope, or global, will more likely generalize to the workplace than a specific trait will. For example, a global evaluation of one's worth will better predict overall job satisfaction than a specific evaluation of one's artistic
519:(i.e., events in one role, whether they be work or family related, enhance quality of life in the other) than those with low CSE. Similarly, higher levels of CSE correlate negativity with work-school conflict and positively with work-school enrichment.
2278:
Judge, T. A., & Hurst, C. (2007). The benefits and possible costs of positive core self-evaluations: A review and agenda for future research. D. Nelson & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Positive organizational behavior (pp. 159-174). London, UK: Sage
135:
conceptualized as the opposite of emotional stability (i.e., non-neuroticism). In fact, because neuroticism and emotional stability are simply labels for two sides of the same trait, they are often used interchangeably in literature.
206:
While investigating the dispositional model, Judge et al. (1997) reasoned that the traits most likely to predict job satisfaction would maintain three important characteristics: evaluation-focused, fundamental, and large in scope.
1360:
Judge, T. A.; Bono, J. E. (2001). "Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis".
560:
Provided that all facets of core self-evaluations (i.e., locus of control, emotional stability, generalized self-efficacy, and self-esteem) are included, the measure will remain a valid predictor of job satisfaction and
596:
Due to the advantages for employers in employing individuals with high core self-evaluations, more research is necessary to determine the practicality of the core self-evaluation measure as part of a selection method.
162:
reflects a person's overall appraisal of his or her own worth. Self-esteem may, in fact, be one of the most essential core self-evaluation domains because it is the overall value one places on oneself as a person.
458:
situations. They are more likely to try to alter the situation than to let the stress affect them. In other words, high CSE individuals will perceive less job stress than low core self-evaluation individuals.
585:
The majority of research suggests that applicants do not believe personality measures are relevant for selection. Thus, applicants may not perceive a fair selection system if a personality measure is included.
446:. Consistently, it has been found that people with high core self-evaluations are more likely to be satisfied with their jobs and with their lives in general than those who have low core-self evaluations.
592:, where participants attempt to "fake" or respond with answers which will be viewed favorably by others as opposed to answering honestly, is a disadvantage of using core self-evaluations in selection.
123:
outside forces control their lives. Those with an internal locus of control are more likely to be satisfied with their job and life because they believe in their own control over the situation.
1838:
Judge, T. A.; Erez, A.; Bono, J. E.; Thoresen, C. J. (2002). "Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct?".
522:
High levels of subordinate and leader CSE increase the subordinate's role clarity (i.e., understanding of job responsibilities and organizational role), which in turn leads to more positive
1127:
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). A rose by any other name . . . . Are self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, neuroticism, and locus of control indicators of a common construct?
105:. These relationships have inspired increasing amounts of research on core self-evaluations and suggest valuable implications about the importance this trait may have for organizations.
2010:
Baker, M. K.; Kennedy, D. J.; Bohle, P. L.; Campbell, D.; Wiltshire, J. H.; Singh, M. A. F. (2011). "Core self-evaluation as a predictor of strength training adoption in older adults".
2045:
Koumoundourou, G.; Tsaousis, I.; Kounenou, K. (2011). "Parental influences on Greek adolescents' career decision-making difficulties: The mediating role of core self-evaluations".
342:
The CSES consists of 12 items, and uses a five-point Likert scale (i.e., strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree) to score responses. Sample items are below:
1208:
McNall, L. A.; Masuda, A. D.; Shanock, L.R.; Nicklin, J. M. (2011). "Interaction of core self-evaluations and perceived organizational support on work-to-family enrichment".
43:
631:
effect on locus of control, neuroticism, self-esteem, and generalized self-efficacy. Moreover, it is unclear why CSE theory chose the four dimensions that it encompasses.
1546:
Sheldon, K. M.; Elliot, A. J. (1998). "Not all personal goals are personal: Comparing autonomous and controlled reasons for goals as predictors of effort and attainment".
311:
researchers still favor using the individual trait scales to measure core self-evaluations, the use of the direct measure is growing more popular in recent literature.
2107:
Laschinger, H. K. S.; Finegan, J.; Wilk, P. (2011). "Situational and dispositional influences on nurses' workplace well-being the role of empowering unit leadership".
1584:
Judge, T. A.; Bono, J. E.; Erez, A.; Locke, E. A. (2005). "Core Self-Evaluations and Job and Life
Satisfaction: The Role of Self-Concordance and Goal Attainment".
1519:
Srivastava, A.; Locke, E. A.; Judge, T. A.; Adams, J. W. (2010). "Core self-evaluations as causes of satisfaction: The mediating role of seeking task complexity".
887:
Costa, P. T.; McCrae, R. R. (1988). "Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality
Inventory".
786:
The concept of core evaluation was first identified by clinical psychologist Edith Packer and presented in her lecture "Understanding the
Subconscious" in 1984.
1146:
Heller, D.; Judge, T. A.; Watson, D. (2002). "The confounding role of personality and trait affectivity in the relationship between job and life satisfaction".
442:
A majority of the literature that examines core self-evaluations and job satisfaction also examines how both of these constructs relate to a person's overall
1659:
Kacmar, K. M.; Harris, K. J.; Collins, B. J.; Judge, T. A. (2009). "Core self-evaluations and job performance: the role of the perceived work environment".
551:
this idea to an extent. Below are advantages and disadvantages of using core self-evaluations in selection as suggested by Judge, Erez, & Bono (1998).
171:
The core self-evaluations trait was developed through the study of job satisfaction. Historically, three models have been used to study job satisfaction.
251:
The core self-evaluations trait has proven to be a valuable dispositional predictor of job satisfaction, demonstrating stronger predictive power than the
2204:
Tasa, K.; Sears, G. J.; Schat, A. C. H. (2011). "Personality and teamwork behavior in context: The cross-level moderating role of collective efficacy".
2177:
Sears, G. J.; Hackett, R. D. (2011). "The influence of role definition and affect in LMX: A process perspective on the personality - LMX relationship".
503:
The CSE trait was found to positively influence older adults' participation in progressive resistance training, which is a type of strength training.
850:
Judge, T. A.; Locke, E. A.; Durham, C. C.; Kluger, A. N. (1998). "Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations".
564:
Measures of each core self-evaluation facet are primarily accessible to the public, as opposed to proprietary like the Big Five personality measures.
2242:
Hiller, N. J.; Hambrick, D. C. (2005). "Conceptualizing executive hubris: The role of (hyper-)core self-evaluations in strategic decision making".
922:
Mount, M. K.; Barrick, M. R. (1995). "The Big Five personality dimensions: Implications for research and practice in human resources management".
1741:
Judge, T. A.; Thoresen, C. J.; Pucik, V.; Welbourne, T. M. (1999). "Managerial coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective".
327:
Direct scales are likely to be more valid because they are designed to measure the underlying trait itself rather than indicators of the trait.
1041:
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Core self-evaluations: A review of the trait and its role in job satisfaction and job performance.
997:
1711:
Judge, T. A.; Erez, A.; Bono, J. E. (1998). "The power of being positive: The relation between positive self-concept and job performance".
1292:
Zhang, Z.; Peterson, S. J. (2011). "Advice networks in teams: The role of transformational leadership and members' core self-evaluations".
222:
surface trait of aggression. Fundamental traits will have a stronger and more consistent effect on job satisfaction than surface traits.
2080:
Hirschi, A (2011). "Vocational identity as a mediator of the relationship between core self-evaluations and life and job
Satisfaction".
1330:
Dormann, C.; Fay, D.; Zapf, D.; Frese, M. (2006). "A state-trait analysis of job satisfaction: On the effect of core self-evaluations".
523:
483:
Furthermore, the authors assessed the role core self-evaluations may play in moderating the established relationship between family
61:
2368:
2363:
1423:
Judge, T. A.; Bono, J. E.; Locke, E. A. (2000). "Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics".
768:
Judge, T. A.; Locke, E. A.; Durham, C. C. (1997). "The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach".
1927:
Best, R. G.; Stapleton, L. M.; Downey, R. G. (2005). "Core self-evaluations and job burnout: The test of alternative models".
2292:
Judge, T. A.; Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2011). "Implications of core self-evaluations for a changing organizational context".
454:
Individuals who appraise themselves positively (i.e., have high core self-evaluations) are more likely to cope actively with
268:
There is skepticism that core self-evaluations contribute any predictive value above what the Big Five personality traits – (
1481:
2326:
Johnson, R. E.; Rosen, C. C.; Levy, P. E. (2008). "Getting to the core of self-evaluation: A review and recommendations".
1178:
Judge, T. A.; Erez, A.; Bono, J. E.; Thoresen, C. J. (2003). "The Core Self-Evaluations Scale: Development of a measure".
852:
314:
There are several reasons the previous indirect measurement of the CSE trait was considered a limitation of CSE research:
377:
the influence of a variety of other constructs on the relationship between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction.
2358:
659:
252:
1624:
Erez, A.; Judge, T. A. (2001). "Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and performance".
1090:
Judge, T. A.; Heller, D.; Klinger, R. (2008). "The dispositional sources of job satisfaction: A comparative test".
622:
As research increases on the construct of core self-evaluations, two major criticisms of the trait have developed.
1055:
Watson, D.; Clark, L. A. (1984). "Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states".
589:
215:
those regarding how they think of and value themselves, should have a large effect on their job satisfaction.
2251:
1370:
527:
516:
1254:
McNall, L. A.; Michel, J. S. (2011). "A dispositional approach to work-school conflict and enrichment".
714:
607:
179:, which attributes job satisfaction to external factors such as the characteristics of the job itself,
669:
664:
511:
488:
484:
467:
298:
256:
2256:
2150:
Westring, A. F.; Ryan, A. M. (2010). "Anticipated work-family conflict: A construct investigation".
802:
Spector, P. E. (1982). "Behavior in organizations as a functioning of employees' locus of control".
530:
team behavior (e.g., establishing team goals, coordinating tasks, monitoring progress toward goal).
193:, which attributes job satisfaction to an interaction between situational and dispositional factors.
1967:
Judge, T. A.; Hurst, C. (2007). "Capitalizing on one's advantages: Role of core self-evaluations".
1375:
709:
611:
547:
333:
Most traits in contemporary personality research are measured with relatively short, direct scales.
2221:
2132:
2062:
1992:
1909:
1863:
1758:
1684:
1563:
1501:
1396:
1271:
1233:
958:
989:
983:
2124:
2027:
1984:
1944:
1901:
1855:
1793:
1676:
1641:
1601:
1440:
1388:
1309:
1225:
1072:
993:
904:
869:
684:
443:
273:
2335:
2301:
2261:
2213:
2186:
2159:
2116:
2089:
2054:
2019:
1976:
1936:
1893:
1847:
1820:
1785:
1750:
1720:
1668:
1633:
1593:
1555:
1528:
1493:
1432:
1380:
1339:
1301:
1263:
1217:
1187:
1155:
1099:
1064:
950:
896:
861:
811:
689:
679:
568:
455:
119:
98:
82:
979:"Causes, correlates, and the functional role of global self-worth: A life-span perspective"
500:
In the most recent literature, core self-evaluations have been linked to various outcomes.
674:
539:
findings have on the use of core self-evaluation measures in an applied business setting.
102:
16:
Stable personality trait encompasses an individual's fundamental evaluation about themself
1191:
978:
144:
2352:
2093:
2066:
1567:
1505:
1343:
1275:
1103:
699:
269:
148:
90:
2225:
2023:
1913:
1867:
1762:
1688:
1237:
2136:
1996:
1897:
1400:
962:
277:
1811:
Brunborg, G (2008). "Core self-evaluations: A predictor variable for job stress".
1724:
582:
Core self-evaluations demonstrate slight to moderate adverse impact against women.
572:
and, thus, will not prevent members of these groups from being selected for a job.
321:
Direct scales are able to measure the underlying trait in a fewer number of items.
2120:
1776:
Hogan, J.; Hogan, R.; Busch, C. M. (1984). "How to measure service orientation".
1221:
1980:
1637:
704:
694:
281:
159:
131:
94:
86:
2305:
1940:
1851:
1789:
1754:
1597:
1436:
1068:
954:
900:
815:
186:, which attributes job satisfaction to internal, stable personality traits, and
2163:
1824:
1532:
1497:
1482:"Expanding the link between core self-evaluations and affective job attitudes"
1384:
1267:
865:
2190:
2058:
1559:
1129:
B.W. Roberts, & R. Hogan (Eds.), Personality
Psychology in the Workplace
2128:
2031:
1988:
1948:
1905:
1859:
1680:
1645:
1605:
1444:
1392:
1313:
1229:
1797:
1076:
908:
873:
285:
787:
247:
Comparisons with the Five-Factor Model and positive/negative affectivity
1672:
1305:
2339:
2265:
2217:
1884:
Maslach, C.; Schaufeli, W. B.; Leiter, M. P. (2001). "Job burnout".
1159:
1131:(pp. 93–118). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
1480:
Stumpp, T.; Hülsheger, U. R.; Muck, P. M.; Maier, G. W. (2009).
941:
Bandura, A. (1982). "Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency".
18:
39:
1486:
European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology
2179:
1016:
Oxford
England: Penguin Books. Retrieved from Ebsco
346:"I am confident I get the success I deserve in life."
1287:
1285:
924:
Research in
Personnel and Human Resources Management
34:
may be too technical for most readers to understand
1249:
1247:
977:
515:individuals with high CSE reported feeling higher
1203:
1201:
988:. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. pp.
263:Five-Factor Model ("Big Five personality traits")
1619:
1617:
1615:
1037:
1035:
1033:
1031:
1029:
1027:
1025:
982:. In Sternberg, R. J.; Kolligan, J. Jr. (eds.).
2321:
2319:
2317:
2315:
1879:
1877:
1457:Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980).
2237:
2235:
1706:
1704:
1702:
1700:
1698:
1475:
1473:
1471:
1469:
1467:
1355:
1353:
1325:
1323:
1141:
1139:
1137:
1123:
1121:
1119:
1117:
1115:
1113:
845:
797:
795:
355:"I am filled with doubts about my competence.
8:
2287:
2285:
1962:
1960:
1958:
1840:Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
1736:
1734:
1579:
1577:
1418:
1416:
1414:
1412:
1410:
1173:
1171:
1169:
889:Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
843:
841:
839:
837:
835:
833:
831:
829:
827:
825:
763:
761:
759:
757:
755:
753:
751:
749:
510:High CSE is associated with lower levels of
202:Selection of the core self-evaluation traits
2082:Applied Psychology: An International Review
1332:Applied Psychology: An International Review
1092:Applied Psychology: An International Review
747:
745:
743:
741:
739:
737:
735:
733:
731:
729:
1548:Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
358:"I determine what will happen in my life."
143:"Generalized self-efficacy", adapted from
2255:
1929:Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
1374:
507:positively related to life satisfaction.
352:"Sometimes when I fail I feel worthless."
62:Learn how and when to remove this message
46:, without removing the technical details.
177:situational/job characteristics approach
1014:The Scientific Analysis of Personality.
725:
588:Similar to other personality measures,
338:The core self-evaluations scale (CSES)
788:https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ENAPR3S/
381:Role of perceived job characteristics
293:Positive/negative affectivity (PA/NA)
44:make it understandable to non-experts
7:
770:Research in Organizational Behavior
2328:Journal of Organizational Behavior
2206:Journal of Organizational Behavior
1256:Journal of Business and Psychology
1192:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00152.x
1148:Journal of Organizational Behavior
109:Definitions of the four dimensions
14:
2294:Human Resource Management Review
2094:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2011.00450.x
1344:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00227.x
1104:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00318.x
1043:European Journal of Personality,
23:
2024:10.1016/j.maturitas.2010.10.001
238:Relationship between the traits
2152:Journal of Vocational Behavior
1898:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397
1521:Journal of Vocational Behavior
645:Conceptualization of the trait
1:
1969:Journal of Applied Psychology
1778:Journal of Applied Psychology
1743:Journal of Applied Psychology
1725:10.1080/08959285.1998.9668030
1661:Journal of Applied Psychology
1626:Journal of Applied Psychology
1586:Journal of Applied Psychology
1425:Journal of Applied Psychology
1363:Journal of Applied Psychology
1294:Journal of Applied Psychology
853:Journal of Applied Psychology
349:"Sometimes I feel depressed."
257:Positive/Negative Affectivity
2244:Strategic Management Journal
2121:10.1097/nnr.0b013e318209782e
2047:Journal of Career Assessment
1461:Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
1222:10.1080/00223980.2010.542506
167:Development of the construct
1981:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1212
1886:Annual Review of Psychology
1638:10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1270
660:Big Five personality traits
496:New directions/developments
253:Big Five personality traits
2385:
2306:10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.10.003
1941:10.1037/1076-8998.10.4.441
1852:10.1037/0022-3514.83.3.693
1790:10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.167
1755:10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.107
1598:10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.257
1437:10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.237
1069:10.1037/0033-2909.96.3.465
955:10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122
901:10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.853
816:10.1037/0033-2909.91.3.482
2164:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.02.004
1825:10.1027/1016-9040.13.2.96
1533:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.04.008
1498:10.1080/13594320802281110
1385:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.80
1268:10.1007/s10869-010-9187-0
1012:Cattell, R. B. (1965).
866:10.1037/0021-9010.83.1.17
139:Generalized self-efficacy
2191:10.1348/096317910x492081
2059:10.1177/1069072710385547
1560:10.1177/0146167298245010
524:leader-member exchanges
411:Role of goal congruence
191:interactionist approach
147:original definition of
2369:Psychological concepts
2364:Psychological attitude
1057:Psychological Bulletin
804:Psychological Bulletin
601:Drawbacks of hyper-CSE
534:Practical implications
528:performance management
517:work-family enrichment
402:Role of job complexity
184:dispositional approach
1813:European Psychologist
1210:Journal of Psychology
985:Competence Considered
943:American Psychologist
715:Overconfidence effect
608:overconfidence effect
299:Affective disposition
75:Core self-evaluations
1180:Personnel Psychology
670:Positive affectivity
665:Negative affectivity
567:Research reveals no
512:emotional exhaustion
489:academic achievement
485:socioeconomic status
1045:17(Suppl1), S5-S18.
976:Harter, S. (1990).
710:Illusion of control
626:Theoretical support
612:illusion of control
590:social desirability
548:Personnel selection
543:Personnel selection
212:Evaluation-focused:
2359:Personality traits
429:Role of motivation
1713:Human Performance
999:978-0-300-04567-3
685:Life satisfaction
487:and individual's
444:life satisfaction
438:Life satisfaction
274:conscientiousness
72:
71:
64:
2376:
2344:
2343:
2323:
2310:
2309:
2289:
2280:
2276:
2270:
2269:
2259:
2239:
2230:
2229:
2201:
2195:
2194:
2174:
2168:
2167:
2147:
2141:
2140:
2109:Nursing Research
2104:
2098:
2097:
2077:
2071:
2070:
2042:
2036:
2035:
2007:
2001:
2000:
1975:(5): 1212–1227.
1964:
1953:
1952:
1924:
1918:
1917:
1881:
1872:
1871:
1835:
1829:
1828:
1808:
1802:
1801:
1773:
1767:
1766:
1738:
1729:
1728:
1719:(2–3): 167–187.
1708:
1693:
1692:
1673:10.1037/a0017498
1667:(6): 1572–1580.
1656:
1650:
1649:
1632:(6): 1270–1279.
1621:
1610:
1609:
1581:
1572:
1571:
1543:
1537:
1536:
1516:
1510:
1509:
1477:
1462:
1455:
1449:
1448:
1420:
1405:
1404:
1378:
1357:
1348:
1347:
1327:
1318:
1317:
1306:10.1037/a0023254
1300:(5): 1004–1017.
1289:
1280:
1279:
1251:
1242:
1241:
1205:
1196:
1195:
1175:
1164:
1163:
1143:
1132:
1125:
1108:
1107:
1087:
1081:
1080:
1052:
1046:
1039:
1020:
1010:
1004:
1003:
981:
973:
967:
966:
938:
932:
931:
919:
913:
912:
884:
878:
877:
847:
820:
819:
799:
790:
784:
778:
777:
765:
690:Locus of Control
680:Job satisfaction
475:Economic success
368:Job satisfaction
145:Albert Bandura's
120:locus of control
114:Locus of control
99:job satisfaction
83:locus of control
67:
60:
56:
53:
47:
27:
26:
19:
2384:
2383:
2379:
2378:
2377:
2375:
2374:
2373:
2349:
2348:
2347:
2340:10.1002/job.514
2325:
2324:
2313:
2291:
2290:
2283:
2277:
2273:
2266:10.1002/smj.455
2257:10.1.1.460.2217
2241:
2240:
2233:
2218:10.1002/job.680
2203:
2202:
2198:
2176:
2175:
2171:
2149:
2148:
2144:
2106:
2105:
2101:
2079:
2078:
2074:
2044:
2043:
2039:
2009:
2008:
2004:
1966:
1965:
1956:
1926:
1925:
1921:
1883:
1882:
1875:
1837:
1836:
1832:
1810:
1809:
1805:
1775:
1774:
1770:
1740:
1739:
1732:
1710:
1709:
1696:
1658:
1657:
1653:
1623:
1622:
1613:
1583:
1582:
1575:
1545:
1544:
1540:
1518:
1517:
1513:
1479:
1478:
1465:
1456:
1452:
1422:
1421:
1408:
1359:
1358:
1351:
1329:
1328:
1321:
1291:
1290:
1283:
1253:
1252:
1245:
1207:
1206:
1199:
1177:
1176:
1167:
1160:10.1002/job.168
1145:
1144:
1135:
1126:
1111:
1089:
1088:
1084:
1054:
1053:
1049:
1040:
1023:
1011:
1007:
1000:
975:
974:
970:
940:
939:
935:
921:
920:
916:
886:
885:
881:
849:
848:
823:
801:
800:
793:
785:
781:
767:
766:
727:
723:
675:Job performance
656:
647:
628:
620:
603:
579:
557:
545:
536:
498:
477:
465:
452:
440:
431:
422:
420:Job performance
413:
404:
383:
370:
365:
340:
308:
295:
265:
249:
240:
226:Large in scope:
204:
169:
157:
141:
129:
116:
111:
103:job performance
68:
57:
51:
48:
40:help improve it
37:
28:
24:
17:
12:
11:
5:
2382:
2380:
2372:
2371:
2366:
2361:
2351:
2350:
2346:
2345:
2334:(3): 391–413.
2311:
2300:(4): 331–341.
2281:
2271:
2250:(4): 297–319.
2231:
2196:
2185:(3): 544–564.
2169:
2158:(2): 596–610.
2142:
2115:(2): 124–131.
2099:
2088:(4): 622–644.
2072:
2053:(2): 165–182.
2037:
2002:
1954:
1935:(4): 441–451.
1919:
1873:
1846:(3): 693–710.
1830:
1803:
1784:(1): 167–173.
1768:
1749:(1): 107–122.
1730:
1694:
1651:
1611:
1592:(2): 257–268.
1573:
1554:(5): 546–557.
1538:
1527:(2): 255–265.
1511:
1492:(2): 148–166.
1463:
1459:Work redesign.
1450:
1431:(2): 237–249.
1406:
1376:10.1.1.705.776
1349:
1319:
1281:
1262:(3): 397–411.
1243:
1216:(2): 133–149.
1197:
1186:(2): 303–331.
1165:
1154:(7): 815–835.
1133:
1109:
1098:(3): 361–372.
1082:
1063:(3): 465–490.
1047:
1021:
1005:
998:
968:
949:(2): 122–147.
933:
914:
895:(5): 853–863.
879:
821:
810:(3): 482–497.
791:
779:
724:
722:
719:
718:
717:
712:
707:
702:
697:
692:
687:
682:
677:
672:
667:
662:
655:
652:
646:
643:
642:
641:
637:
627:
624:
619:
616:
602:
599:
594:
593:
586:
583:
578:
575:
574:
573:
569:adverse impact
565:
562:
556:
553:
544:
541:
535:
532:
497:
494:
476:
473:
464:
461:
451:
448:
439:
436:
430:
427:
421:
418:
412:
409:
403:
400:
382:
379:
369:
366:
364:
361:
360:
359:
356:
353:
350:
347:
339:
336:
335:
334:
328:
322:
307:
304:
303:
302:
294:
291:
290:
289:
264:
261:
248:
245:
239:
236:
231:
230:
223:
216:
203:
200:
195:
194:
187:
180:
168:
165:
156:
153:
140:
137:
128:
125:
115:
112:
110:
107:
89:, generalized
70:
69:
31:
29:
22:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2381:
2370:
2367:
2365:
2362:
2360:
2357:
2356:
2354:
2341:
2337:
2333:
2329:
2322:
2320:
2318:
2316:
2312:
2307:
2303:
2299:
2295:
2288:
2286:
2282:
2279:Publications.
2275:
2272:
2267:
2263:
2258:
2253:
2249:
2245:
2238:
2236:
2232:
2227:
2223:
2219:
2215:
2211:
2207:
2200:
2197:
2192:
2188:
2184:
2180:
2173:
2170:
2165:
2161:
2157:
2153:
2146:
2143:
2138:
2134:
2130:
2126:
2122:
2118:
2114:
2110:
2103:
2100:
2095:
2091:
2087:
2083:
2076:
2073:
2068:
2064:
2060:
2056:
2052:
2048:
2041:
2038:
2033:
2029:
2025:
2021:
2017:
2013:
2006:
2003:
1998:
1994:
1990:
1986:
1982:
1978:
1974:
1970:
1963:
1961:
1959:
1955:
1950:
1946:
1942:
1938:
1934:
1930:
1923:
1920:
1915:
1911:
1907:
1903:
1899:
1895:
1891:
1887:
1880:
1878:
1874:
1869:
1865:
1861:
1857:
1853:
1849:
1845:
1841:
1834:
1831:
1826:
1822:
1819:(2): 96–102.
1818:
1814:
1807:
1804:
1799:
1795:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1779:
1772:
1769:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1752:
1748:
1744:
1737:
1735:
1731:
1726:
1722:
1718:
1714:
1707:
1705:
1703:
1701:
1699:
1695:
1690:
1686:
1682:
1678:
1674:
1670:
1666:
1662:
1655:
1652:
1647:
1643:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1627:
1620:
1618:
1616:
1612:
1607:
1603:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1587:
1580:
1578:
1574:
1569:
1565:
1561:
1557:
1553:
1549:
1542:
1539:
1534:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1515:
1512:
1507:
1503:
1499:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1476:
1474:
1472:
1470:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1454:
1451:
1446:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1419:
1417:
1415:
1413:
1411:
1407:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1377:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1356:
1354:
1350:
1345:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1326:
1324:
1320:
1315:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1288:
1286:
1282:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1250:
1248:
1244:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1204:
1202:
1198:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1174:
1172:
1170:
1166:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1142:
1140:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1124:
1122:
1120:
1118:
1116:
1114:
1110:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1086:
1083:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1051:
1048:
1044:
1038:
1036:
1034:
1032:
1030:
1028:
1026:
1022:
1019:
1015:
1009:
1006:
1001:
995:
991:
987:
986:
980:
972:
969:
964:
960:
956:
952:
948:
944:
937:
934:
929:
925:
918:
915:
910:
906:
902:
898:
894:
890:
883:
880:
875:
871:
867:
863:
859:
855:
854:
846:
844:
842:
840:
838:
836:
834:
832:
830:
828:
826:
822:
817:
813:
809:
805:
798:
796:
792:
789:
783:
780:
775:
771:
764:
762:
760:
758:
756:
754:
752:
750:
748:
746:
744:
742:
740:
738:
736:
734:
732:
730:
726:
720:
716:
713:
711:
708:
706:
703:
701:
700:Self-efficacy
698:
696:
693:
691:
688:
686:
683:
681:
678:
676:
673:
671:
668:
666:
663:
661:
658:
657:
653:
651:
644:
638:
634:
633:
632:
625:
623:
617:
615:
613:
609:
600:
598:
591:
587:
584:
581:
580:
577:Disadvantages
576:
570:
566:
563:
559:
558:
554:
552:
549:
542:
540:
533:
531:
529:
525:
520:
518:
513:
508:
504:
501:
495:
493:
490:
486:
481:
474:
472:
469:
462:
460:
457:
449:
447:
445:
437:
435:
428:
426:
419:
417:
410:
408:
401:
399:
395:
391:
387:
380:
378:
374:
367:
362:
357:
354:
351:
348:
345:
344:
343:
337:
332:
329:
326:
323:
320:
317:
316:
315:
312:
305:
300:
297:
296:
292:
287:
283:
279:
275:
271:
270:agreeableness
267:
266:
262:
260:
258:
254:
246:
244:
237:
235:
227:
224:
220:
217:
213:
210:
209:
208:
201:
199:
192:
188:
185:
181:
178:
174:
173:
172:
166:
164:
161:
154:
152:
150:
149:self-efficacy
146:
138:
136:
133:
126:
124:
121:
113:
108:
106:
104:
100:
96:
92:
91:self-efficacy
88:
84:
80:
76:
66:
63:
55:
45:
41:
35:
32:This article
30:
21:
20:
2331:
2327:
2297:
2293:
2274:
2247:
2243:
2212:(1): 65–85.
2209:
2205:
2199:
2182:
2178:
2172:
2155:
2151:
2145:
2112:
2108:
2102:
2085:
2081:
2075:
2050:
2046:
2040:
2018:(1): 88–93.
2015:
2011:
2005:
1972:
1968:
1932:
1928:
1922:
1889:
1885:
1843:
1839:
1833:
1816:
1812:
1806:
1781:
1777:
1771:
1746:
1742:
1716:
1712:
1664:
1660:
1654:
1629:
1625:
1589:
1585:
1551:
1547:
1541:
1524:
1520:
1514:
1489:
1485:
1458:
1453:
1428:
1424:
1369:(1): 80–92.
1366:
1362:
1338:(1): 27–51.
1335:
1331:
1297:
1293:
1259:
1255:
1213:
1209:
1183:
1179:
1151:
1147:
1128:
1095:
1091:
1085:
1060:
1056:
1050:
1042:
1017:
1013:
1008:
984:
971:
946:
942:
936:
927:
923:
917:
892:
888:
882:
860:(1): 17–34.
857:
851:
807:
803:
782:
773:
769:
648:
629:
621:
604:
595:
561:performance.
546:
537:
521:
509:
505:
502:
499:
482:
478:
466:
453:
441:
432:
423:
414:
405:
396:
392:
388:
384:
375:
371:
341:
331:Consistency:
330:
324:
318:
313:
309:
278:extraversion
250:
241:
232:
225:
219:Fundamental:
218:
211:
205:
196:
190:
183:
176:
170:
158:
142:
130:
117:
78:
74:
73:
58:
52:October 2011
49:
33:
1892:: 397–422.
705:Self-esteem
695:Neuroticism
468:Job burnout
463:Job burnout
306:Measurement
282:neuroticism
160:Self-esteem
155:Self-esteem
132:Neuroticism
127:Neuroticism
95:self-esteem
87:neuroticism
2353:Categories
930:: 153–200.
776:: 151–188.
721:References
618:Criticisms
555:Advantages
456:job stress
450:Job stress
2252:CiteSeerX
2067:145308972
2012:Maturitas
1568:145243179
1506:143887440
1371:CiteSeerX
1276:144974019
325:Validity:
2226:11777000
2129:21317827
2032:21055889
1989:17845081
1949:16248691
1914:42874270
1906:11148311
1868:18551901
1860:12219863
1763:17203010
1689:22243909
1681:19916664
1646:11768067
1606:15769236
1445:10783540
1393:11302235
1314:21463014
1238:21369340
1230:21449248
654:See also
363:Outcomes
286:openness
229:ability.
2137:2640164
1997:7900291
1798:6698916
1401:6612810
1077:6393179
963:3377361
909:3379583
874:9494439
610:and/or
319:Length:
38:Please
2254:
2224:
2135:
2127:
2065:
2030:
1995:
1987:
1947:
1912:
1904:
1866:
1858:
1796:
1761:
1687:
1679:
1644:
1604:
1566:
1504:
1443:
1399:
1391:
1373:
1312:
1274:
1236:
1228:
1075:
996:
961:
907:
872:
93:, and
2222:S2CID
2133:S2CID
2063:S2CID
1993:S2CID
1910:S2CID
1864:S2CID
1759:S2CID
1685:S2CID
1564:S2CID
1502:S2CID
1397:S2CID
1272:S2CID
1234:S2CID
1018:host.
990:67–97
959:S2CID
2125:PMID
2028:PMID
1985:PMID
1945:PMID
1902:PMID
1856:PMID
1794:PMID
1677:PMID
1642:PMID
1602:PMID
1441:PMID
1389:PMID
1310:PMID
1226:PMID
1073:PMID
994:ISBN
905:PMID
870:PMID
189:The
182:The
175:The
118:The
101:and
2336:doi
2302:doi
2262:doi
2214:doi
2187:doi
2160:doi
2117:doi
2090:doi
2055:doi
2020:doi
1977:doi
1937:doi
1894:doi
1848:doi
1821:doi
1786:doi
1751:doi
1721:doi
1669:doi
1634:doi
1594:doi
1556:doi
1529:doi
1494:doi
1433:doi
1381:doi
1340:doi
1302:doi
1264:doi
1218:doi
1214:145
1188:doi
1156:doi
1100:doi
1065:doi
951:doi
897:doi
862:doi
812:doi
255:or
79:CSE
42:to
2355::
2332:29
2330:.
2314:^
2298:21
2296:.
2284:^
2260:.
2248:26
2246:.
2234:^
2220:.
2210:32
2208:.
2183:84
2181:.
2156:79
2154:.
2131:.
2123:.
2113:60
2111:.
2086:60
2084:.
2061:.
2051:19
2049:.
2026:.
2016:68
2014:.
1991:.
1983:.
1973:92
1971:.
1957:^
1943:.
1933:10
1931:.
1908:.
1900:.
1890:52
1888:.
1876:^
1862:.
1854:.
1844:83
1842:.
1817:13
1815:.
1792:.
1782:69
1780:.
1757:.
1747:84
1745:.
1733:^
1717:11
1715:.
1697:^
1683:.
1675:.
1665:94
1663:.
1640:.
1630:86
1628:.
1614:^
1600:.
1590:90
1588:.
1576:^
1562:.
1552:24
1550:.
1525:77
1523:.
1500:.
1490:18
1488:.
1484:.
1466:^
1439:.
1429:85
1427:.
1409:^
1395:.
1387:.
1379:.
1367:86
1365:.
1352:^
1336:55
1334:.
1322:^
1308:.
1298:96
1296:.
1284:^
1270:.
1260:26
1258:.
1246:^
1232:.
1224:.
1212:.
1200:^
1184:56
1182:.
1168:^
1152:23
1150:.
1136:^
1112:^
1096:57
1094:.
1071:.
1061:96
1059:.
1024:^
992:.
957:.
947:37
945:.
928:13
926:.
903:.
893:54
891:.
868:.
858:83
856:.
824:^
808:91
806:.
794:^
774:19
772:.
728:^
614:.
284:,
280:,
276:,
272:,
259:.
85:,
2342:.
2338::
2308:.
2304::
2268:.
2264::
2228:.
2216::
2193:.
2189::
2166:.
2162::
2139:.
2119::
2096:.
2092::
2069:.
2057::
2034:.
2022::
1999:.
1979::
1951:.
1939::
1916:.
1896::
1870:.
1850::
1827:.
1823::
1800:.
1788::
1765:.
1753::
1727:.
1723::
1691:.
1671::
1648:.
1636::
1608:.
1596::
1570:.
1558::
1535:.
1531::
1508:.
1496::
1447:.
1435::
1403:.
1383::
1346:.
1342::
1316:.
1304::
1278:.
1266::
1240:.
1220::
1194:.
1190::
1162:.
1158::
1106:.
1102::
1079:.
1067::
1002:.
965:.
953::
911:.
899::
876:.
864::
818:.
814::
77:(
65:)
59:(
54:)
50:(
36:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.