Person-Job Fit: Do Job Characteristics Moderate the Relationship of Personality with Burnout, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment? by Andrea Leigh Doyle A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Auburn, Alabama August 2, 2014 Keywords: job characteristics, personality, perfectionism, burnout, job satisfaction, organizational commitment Copyright 2014 by Andrea Leigh Doyle Approved by Daniel Svyantek, Chair, Professor of Psychology Alan Walker, Associate Professor of Management Christopher Correia, Associate Professor of Psychology Jacqueline Deuling, Associate Professor of Psychology ii Abstract Decades-long research on personality-situation interaction's influence on behavior provided the underlying theory for the present study. Applied to the workplace, the underlying theory appears in the form of person-job and person-organization research. In the present research, the Job Characteristics Model (JCM) provides the framework for investigating the interaction of personality and job characteristics. Results revealed personality traits interacted with job scope (i.e., the combination of job characteristics) to predict burnout, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Approximately 300 individuals, who work full-time, were surveyed on their personality, characteristics of their job, and levels of burnout, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Job scope significantly moderated conscientiousness and burnout, neuroticism and organizational commitment, and agreeableness and organizational commitment. Specific job characteristics were investigated as potential moderators. Autonomy moderated the relationship between conscientiousness and burnout, and feedback moderated the relationship between agreeableness and burnout. Skill variety moderated the relationship between neuroticism and organizational commitment. No significant moderations were found for job satisfaction. Practical implications of the findings, limitations of the study, and suggestions for future research are discussed. iii Acknowledgments First, I want thank the members of my committee, Dr. Daniel Svyantek, Dr. Jacqueline Deuling, Dr. Chris Correia, and Dr. Alan Walker, for their professional advice and guidance throughout the dissertation process. Thank you for your time in serving on my committee. I appreciate your input in refining my dissertation. I want to thank Dr. Adrian Thomas for his mentorship and guidance during my entire graduate school career--at WKU, at Auburn, and beyond. I want to thank Angela Harrison, who has given me a confidence boost when I needed it and laughs during difficult and stressful times. Thank you to Tara Barker, Jana Thornton, Phyllis Hunt, and Jean Thornton for your years of wonderful friendship and support. Thank you to Doug Nanney for supporting and encouraging me over the past year. I want to thank my family for their support. To my cousin, Brian, you have always inspired me to expand my horizons and not be afraid to try something new. Thank you to my grandmother, Ann Johnson (Granny), for helping me while I transitioned from full-time employment to being a graduate student. Thank you to my father and brothers for their support throughout graduate school (and especially for moving my stuff many, many times). Most importantly, I thank God for giving me courage, steadfastness, perseverance, and peace of mind when I thought obtaining a PhD was not possible. I dedicate this dissertation to my mother, Betty, and to Grandma Doyle, whom I believe have guided me from Heaven. iv Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................ iii List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. vii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ viii List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... ix Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 Literature Review ......................................................................................................................... 6 The Person-Situation Debate .......................................................................................... 6 The Interactionist Framework ........................................................................................... 8 Situational strength ............................................................................................... 9 Person-job fit ....................................................................................................... 10 Job Characteristics Model ............................................................................................... 11 Personality Variables ...................................................................................................... 17 Perfectionism ...................................................................................................... 17 Perfectionism and job characteristics...................................................... 19 Five Factor Model of personality ........................................................................ 20 FFM and job characteristics .................................................................... 21 Work Outcome Variables ............................................................................................... 23 Burnout ............................................................................................................... 23 v Burnout and personality .......................................................................... 24 Burnout and job characteristics ............................................................... 26 Job Satisfaction ................................................................................................... 27 Job satisfaction and personality .............................................................. 29 Job satisfaction and job characteristics ................................................... 31 Organizational Commitment ............................................................................... 32 Organizational commitment and personality .......................................... 35 Organizational commitment and job characteristics ............................... 36 Present Study .............................................................................................................................. 38 Methods....................................................................................................................................... 45 Sample............................................................................................................................. 45 Measures ......................................................................................................................... 46 Demographics ..................................................................................................... 46 Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) .............................................................................. 46 Almost Perfect Scale - Revised (APS-R)............................................................ 47 International Personality Inventory Pool (IPIP) ................................................. 47 Maslach Burnout Inventory - General Survey (MBI-GS) .................................. 48 Abridged Job in General Index (AJIG) ............................................................... 48 Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) ........................................... 49 Procedure ........................................................................................................................ 49 Results ......................................................................................................................................... 51 Testing for Common Method Bias ................................................................................. 51 Descriptives and Correlations ......................................................................................... 52 vi Moderation Analyses for Job Scope ............................................................................... 52 Burnout ............................................................................................................... 55 Job Satisfaction ................................................................................................... 55 Organizational Commitment ............................................................................... 57 Moderation Analyses for Specific Job Characteristics ................................................... 60 Burnout ............................................................................................................... 60 Job Satisfaction ................................................................................................... 63 Organizational Commitment ............................................................................... 63 Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 66 Implications..................................................................................................................... 71 Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 72 Future Directions ............................................................................................................ 73 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 75 References ................................................................................................................................... 77 Appendix A ............................................................................................................................... 102 vii List of Tables Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables ................................................. 53 Table 2 Zero-order Correlations among Study Variables ....................................................... 54 Table 3 Hierarchical Regression for Burnout Testing Job Scope Moderation ........................ 56 Table 4 Hierarchical Regression for Job Satisfaction Testing Job Scope Moderation ........... 57 Table 5 Hierarchical Regression for Organizational Commitment Testing Job Scope Moderation ................................................................................................ 58 Table 6 Hierarchical Regression for Burnout Testing Autonomy Moderation ....................... 61 Table 7 Hierarchical Regression for Burnout Testing Feedback Moderation ......................... 62 Table 8 Hierarchical Regression for Organizational Commitment Testing Autonomy Moderation ............................................................................................... 64 Table 9 Hierarchical Regression for Organizational Commitment Testing Skill Variety Moderation ............................................................................................ 65 viii List of Figures Figure 1 General interactionist framework for current study ..................................................... 5 Figure 2 Conscientiousness-burnout moderation by job scope ................................................ 56 Figure 3 Neuroticism-organizational commitment moderation by job scope .......................... 59 Figure 4 Agreeableness-organizational commitment moderation by job scope ....................... 59 Figure 5 Conscientiousness-burnout moderation by autonomy ............................................... 62 Figure 6 Conscientiousness-burnout moderation by feedback ................................................. 63 Figure 7 Neuroticism-organizational commitment moderation by skill variety ....................... 65 ix List of Abbreviations AJIG Abridged Job in General APS-R Almost Perfect Scale-Revised ASA Attraction-Selection-Attrition EFA Exploratory Factor Analysis FFM Five Factor Model GNS Growth Need Strength IPIP International Personality Inventory Pool JCM Job Characteristics Model JDI Job Descriptive Index JDS Job Diagnostic Survey JIG Job in General JSS Job Satisfaction Survey KSAs Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities MBI-GS Maslach Burnout Inventory ? General Survey MPS Motivating Potential Score MSQ Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire OCQ Organizational Commitment Questionnaire P-E Person-Environment P-J Person-Job P-O Person-Organization 1 Introduction During the past century, personality researchers have debated the influence of traits versus environmental factors on an individual?s behavior. Some researchers advocated that personality traits were the best predictor of behavior (e.g., Allport, 1966; Bowers, 1973; Staw & Ross; 1985; Weiss & Adler, 1984) whereas other researchers took the position that features of the situation or environment surrounding the individual best predict behavior (Mischel, 1968; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977, 1978; Skinner, 1971). However, over time and numerous research studies, most personality researchers have reached a consensus that both the person and the situation are important for predicting behavior, known as interactionism (Chatman, 1989; Funder, 2001; Magnusson & Endler, 1977; Mischel 1977; Schneider, 1983; Terborg, 1981). In 1938, Murray described situations as exerting ?press? on individuals to influence their behavior in a manner related to their traits (Tett & Burnett, 2003; Tett & Guterman, 2000). Cues in the environment act to create strong or weak situations for an individual that influence behavior (Adler & Weiss, 1988; Beaty, Cleveland, & Murphy, 2001; Mischel, 1977; Monson, Hesley, & Chernick, 1982; Tett & Burnett, 2003; Withey, Gellatly, & Annett, 2005). In a strong situation, most individuals will interpret the environment in a similar way, ultimately limiting the expression of individual personality differences. Thus, in a strong situation, behavior may be attributed more to environmental factors than to personality whereas in a weak situation, individual differences are more likely to direct actions. Simply put, individuals in weak situations are allowed to ?be themselves.? 2 Personality-situation interaction theories are especially relevant to the workplace. Organizations typically have policies and rules in place that dictate employee behavior. Given the diversity of organizations, these policies will likely vary. Accordingly, the situational factors in which employees perform their duties will vary across organizations or even within organizations. To study work-related outcomes, therefore, one must consider various employment situations. In line with the interactionist perspective, research on various employment situations should also include employees' personality differences as a potential factor for how employees react to their work environment. In the context of the workplace, Person-Job (P-J) fit refers to a match between the employee's characteristics and characteristics of the job. P-J fit is a type of Person-Environment (P-E) fit, which is the level of compatibility between individual characteristics and those of the environment they occupy. P-J fit is high when the characteristics of the employee are congruent with the requirements of the job (Ehrhart, 2006; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). The lack of P-J fit can be a major source of stress for employees. If P-J fit is lacking, an employee can experience strains that are psychological, physiological, and behavioral. These strains are antecedents to boredom, anxiety, and job dissatisfaction (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Warr & Inceoglu, 2012). When P-J fit is high, employees should have more positive work attitudes because employers meet their needs and better utilize their skills. Having good P-J fit for employees benefits not only the individual employee but also the entire organization in improved work attitudes, better performance, and higher organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Cooper, Dewe, & O'Driscoll, 2001; Dawis, 1992; Judge & Kristof-Brown, 2004; Kulik, Oldham, & Hackman, 1987; Meyer & Allen, 1991; Warr & Inceoglu, 2012). 3 The Job Characteristics Model (JCM), proposed by Hackman and Oldham (1975), offers a framework for studying the contextual factors faced by employees in the workplace. The JCM proposes that all jobs consist of five core dimensions: skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback. Across jobs, the level of each of these dimensions can vary. However, according to the JCM, the more all five dimensions are present in a job, the more likely an employee will experience meaningfulness, feel responsible, and understand their effectiveness of their performance, ultimately leading to higher internal work motivation and quality work performance. Job scope is the level of these five dimensions present in a job (Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Hackman & Oldham, 1975). In addition, the JCM takes into account the influence of growth need strength (GNS), a personality trait reflecting an individual's desire for experiences that will lead to growth and development, on the relationships among the five job characteristics and work outcomes, such as job satisfaction. Several researchers have utilized the JCM to study employees' affective reactions, job satisfaction, work motivation, and job performance (Brief & Aldag, 1975; Fried & Ferris, 1987; Loher, Noe, Moeller, & Fitzgerald, 1985; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Parker, 1998; Saavedra & Kwun, 2000; Spector & Jex, 1991). For example, Loher et al. (1985) and Spector and Jex (1991) found significant relationships among the five JCM dimensions and job satisfaction. Some researchers have explored the interaction of job characteristics with personality in predicting work-related outcomes (Brief & Aldag, 1975; de Jong, van der Velde, & Jansen, 2001; Fried & Ferris, 1987; Kuo & Ho, 2010; Loher et al., 1985; Saavedra & Kwun, 2000; Thomas, Buboltz, & Winkelspecht, 2004). Brief and Aldag (1975) found that as compared to employees with lower levels of GNS, employees with higher levels of GNS had stronger relationships among the core job dimensions and affective responses about their job. 4 Although several researchers have investigated relationships among job characteristics and various work behaviors and attitudes, many personality and work-related outcomes remain unstudied that are essential to understanding employees' attitudes, behaviors, and well-being in relation to job characteristics. Work outcomes with a theoretical significance for job characteristics such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and burnout are considered in the current study. For example, burnout is particularly important for organizations and employees because it has been linked to outcomes that are potentially negative for organizations, such as decreased wellness of employees, higher absenteeism, lower productivity, and increased turnover (de Hoogh & den Hartog, 2009; Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004; Leiter & Maslach, 2004; Spence Laschinger & Finegan, 2008). Personality traits beyond GNS may provide insight. Research has found that perfectionism and the dimensions of the Five Factor Model (FFM) are related to not only burnout but to job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Freudenberger, 1975; Mitchelson & Burns, 1998; Stoeber & Rennert, 2008; Zhang, Gan, & Cham, 2007). Thus the current study will focus on perfectionism and the five dimensions of the FFM. To date, research literature has not fully addressed the moderating role of job characteristics in relationships among perfectionism, the FFM, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and burnout. Taking an interactionist approach, the present study will explore these potential relationships. Figure 1 below illustrates the framework utilized for the current study. Although the relationships of perfectionism and the FFM dimensions with organizational outcomes have been studied extensively (Bakker, van der Zee, Lewig, & Dollard, 2006; Costa & McCrae, 1992; de Vries & van Heck, 2002; Stoeber & Rennert, 2008; Zellars, Perrewe, & Hochwarter, 2000; Zhang et al., 2007), the present study seeks to integrate the characteristics of 5 jobs as defined by the JCM as a moderator of these relationships. The primary objectives of the present study are to: (1) investigate the relationships among personality traits (i.e., perfectionism and FFM) and work outcomes of burnout, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment, (2) investigate the relationship of the dimensions of the JCM with work outcomes of burnout, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction, (3) determine if job scope, as defined by the JCM moderates the relationships among personality traits and work outcomes, and (4) determine if dimensions of the JCM differentially moderate the relationships among personality traits and work outcomes. Figure 1. General interactionist framework for current study Work-Related Outcomes Burnout Job Satisfaction Organizational Commitment Personality Perfectionism Five Factor Model Job Scope Autonomy Skill Variety Task Significance Task Identity Feedback 6 Literature Review The Person-Situation Debate Over the past 100 years, psychologists have debated whether personality or the environment is mostly responsible for and influences individual behavior. Some psychologists have argued that traits (or dispositions) are the best predictors of behavior (Allport, 1937, 1961; Bowers, 1973; Staw & Ross, 1985; Weiss & Adler, 1984), but other psychologists have theorized that the "situation" or the environment is the best predictor for individuals (Mischel, 1968; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978; Skinner, 1971; Thorndike, 1906). However, both the dispositional approach and the situationist approach have not produced research results with strong correlations between behavior and personality or situation (Beaty et al., 2001; Bem & Allen, 1974; Keeney, Snell, Robinson, Svyantek, & Bott, 2004). A third approach, the interactionist approach, has gained support in the literature over the past several decades. The interactionist approach assumes that the interaction of personality and the situation accounts for the variability in individual behavior (Endler & Magnusson, 1976; House, Shane, & Herold, 1996; James & Mazerolle, 2002; Kristoff, 1996; Magnusson, 1990; Mischel, 1990; Mischel & Shoda, 1995; Murtha, Kanfer, & Ackerman, 1996; Pervin, 1989). Following is a brief explanation of the dispositional and situationist approaches as well as a review of the literature supporting the interactionist approach. The dispositional approach assumes that individual differences in personality traits are going to best predict behavior (Allport, 1937; 1966; Block, 1978; Bowers, 1973; Chatman, 1989, Staw & Ross, 1985; Weiss & Adler, 1984). A trait is a group of characteristics possessed by an individual which are relatively enduring across time and 7 can distinguish an individual from others. Typically, people infer the traits of others from observations of their overt behavior. Traits, acting as intervening variables, can strengthen the predictive accuracy of individual behavior (Allport, 1961; Stagner, 1977). Researchers who adhere to the dispositional approach assume that traits and behavior have a direct relationship. Therefore, the assumption is that individual behavior will be consistent across situations (Chatman, 1989). Researchers have attempted to measure dispositional effects on behavior by measuring individual behavior in several situations. Then, the measurements of behavior are aggregated across the situations which indicate the individual's true score on the personality trait. Therefore, when inconsistencies (or variability) in behavior occur across situations, researchers have treated these inconsistencies as measurement error (Funder, 2008; Mischel & Shoda, 1995). However, correlations between traits and behavior across multiple situations have been weak, with an upper limit of approximately r = .30 to r = .40 (Beaty et al., 2001; Keeney et al., 2004; Mischel & Shoda, 1995). On the other side of the disposition-situation debate, researchers focused on the characteristics of a situation as predictors of behavior (e.g., Mischel, 1968; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977, 1978; Skinner, 1971; Thorndike, 1906). The As far back as 1938, Murray posited that situations exert press on individual behavior. The low correlations found between personality and behavior provides reason for investigating how well situations can predict behavior (Mischel & Shoda, 1995). To assess the effects of situations on behavior, researchers typically calculate the mean of behavioral measurements across individuals in different types of situations (e.g., wedding reception, job interview, party with close friends). Researchers statistically compare the behavioral means from these various situations. Significant differences are interpreted as the influence of the situation on behavior (Funder, 2008). 8 The Interactionist Framework Although Mischel (1968) initially criticized the dispositional approach, he, along with other researchers, adopted an interactionist perspective, the idea that personality and situation interact to produce behavior (e.g., Mischel, 1977; Mischel & Shoda, 1995, 1998). As pointed out by several researchers (Beaty et al., 2001; Keeney et al., 2004; Mischel & Shoda, 1995), personality tends to account for little variance in behavior. These findings may be due to the exclusion of the environmental impact on the individual (Gellatly & Irving, 2001). This perspective was proposed by Lewin in 1935 as B = f(P,E), where B = behavior, P = person, and E = environment. In short, Lewin?s proposal states that behavior is a function of the person and the environment. In the decades following, psychologists expanded the basic model. Endler and Magnusson (1976) defined the model based on four assumptions. First, actual behavior is a function of continual feedback between the person and situation. Second, the individual is active in the process. Third, cognitive factors mostly determine behavior although emotion can have a role. Finally, behavior is also determined by the psychological meaning of the situation for the individual. If behavior is a function of both personality and the situation, then the issue becomes how to explain cross-situational inconsistencies in behavior within individuals. The interactionist framework addresses this issue by identifying patterns of when and where an individual exhibits a behavior, not necessarily how often the individual displays the particular behavior. These patterns are referred to as if...then situation-behavior relationships. Within a particular situation, if...then patterns should be stable and thus variability in behavior may not be completely random. Therefore, an individual should have behavioral consistency within the same situations or situations that are similar (Cervone & Shoda, 1999; Funder, 2001; Mischel, 2004; Mischel & 9 Shoda, 1995; Shoda & LeeTiernan, 2002; Shoda & Mischel, 1998; Shoda, Mischel, & Wright, 1994). For example, a college freshman, Taylor, who scored high on an introversion scale, behaves in an introverted manner at a social party. However, Taylor exhibits substantially fewer introverted behaviors when visiting family. Given the idea of if?then signatures, Taylor would be expected to act introverted at a wedding reception of a casual friend but may be somewhat outgoing during Thanksgiving dinner at home. However, research has frequently found that the correlation between behavior in one situation and behavior in a second situation can be r = .40 or greater (Funder, 2001). Although this correlation represents only 16% of variance explained, Funder (2001) points out that these studies typically are measuring single rather than aggregate behaviors and squaring correlations to interpret size is misleading. Some researchers interpreted large mean differences in behavior, in response to small changes in the environment, as evidence of a weak influence of personality on behavior. Funder (2001) states that consistency in behavior and changes in behavior are orthogonal concepts. The size of a mean difference in behavior between two situations does not have implications for the size of the correlation for individual differences consistency across situations. Funder concludes that the influence of personality versus the influence of situation on behavior is and was always an artificial dichotomy. Situational strength. According to the interactionist framework, behavior is a result of the interaction between personality and attributes of a situation. A key situational attribute that can affect these interactions, particularly how influential personality will be on behavior, is the strength of the situation. In the literature, situation strength has been classified as strong and weak (Adler & Weiss, 1988; Beaty et al., 2001; Mischel, 1977; Monson et al., 1982; Tett & Burnett, 2003; Withey et al., 2005). Clear behavioral expectations, pressure to conform, and a 10 restricted range of acceptable behavior characterize strong situations. In contrast greater behavioral latitude, low demand to conform, and personal discretion in choosing one's behavior define weak situations. In a strong situation, the extent that personality can impact behavior becomes limited. Individuals are more likely to interpret the situation similarly, resulting in little variance in behavioral expression across individuals. In weak situations, more behavioral variability across individuals is expected because of the lack of constraints. Therefore, personality may have a greater influence on behavior in the personality-situation interaction in these weak situations (Barrick & Mount, 1993; Gellatly & Irving, 2001; Mischel, 1968, 1977; Tett & Burnett, 2003; Withey et al., 2005). Several researchers (e.g., Adler & Weiss, 1988; Barrick & Mount, 1993; Beaty et al., 2001; Monson et al., 1984; Withey et al., 2005) have found that the strength of a situation affects behavior. Barrick and Mount (1993) found that managers high in conscientiousness and/or extraversion performed more effectively in jobs giving them a lot of discretion, or autonomy. In contrast, managers high in agreeableness were better performers in jobs with little discretion. Monson et al. (1984) found that personality predicted behavior only when environmental pressures were weak. Beaty et al. (2001) found a significant interaction of personality and situation predicting performance but only accounting for 4% of the variance in performance. Withey et al. (2005) studied the relationship between the dimensions of the FFM and intention to exert effort. The relationship between effort and FFM dimensions of neuroticism, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness was greater in a weak situation (mean r = .24) than in a strong situation (mean r = .14). These results seem to support the notion that in a weaker situation, employers will allow greater behavioral latitude. Person-job fit. P-E fit theory is a work environment-related outgrowth of Lewin's field theory, interactionism, and situational strength. In the most general sense, P-E fit refers to the 11 level of compatibility between an individual's characteristics and those of the environment they occupy. Dawis (1992) suggested that P-E fit can be a proxy for person-environment interaction. Thus, good P-E fit occurs when specific situational circumstances are at the most compatible with the traits of the individual. In terms of employment, P-E fit has been defined in various ways, such as person-organization (P-O) fit and P-J fit (Ehrhart, 2006; Judge & Kristof-Brown, 2004; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Given that this study focuses on personality-job characteristics interactions, P-J fit will be used instead of the more general P-E fit. P-J fit occurs when an employee's work situation meets two conditions. First, the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) of an employee should be congruent with the demands and requirements of the job. Second, the job fulfills the needs and preferences of the employee. In real-world work environments, the demands of the work environment as well as employees' KSAs can vary widely. Therefore, the goal of an employer would be to match the right person with the most relevant abilities to meet job demands to a work environment that can fulfill the needs of the employee (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Kulik et al., 1987). Having good P-J fit can benefit the organization via improved work attitudes and performance, less stress, and higher organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Cooper et al., 2001; Dawis, 1992; Judge & Kristof-Brown, 2004; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Kulik et al., 1987). Job Characteristics Model In 1975, Hackman and Oldham proposed a model to explain how the characteristics of jobs can influence work motivation, attitudes, and behavior. The JCM posits that when three critical psychological states (i.e., experienced meaningfulness, experienced responsibility, and knowledge of results) are present for employees, positive work outcomes, such as work satisfaction, quality performances, and low turnover, are possible. Five job dimensions, posited 12 by Hackman and Oldham to describe the scope of any job, generate the critical psychological states. These five dimensions are: (a) skill variety, (b) task identity, (c) task significance, (d) autonomy, and (e) feedback from the job. Skill variety refers to the extent that a job requires various activities, skills, and talents. Task identity refers to the extent that a job requires completion of a whole and identifiable piece of work from start to finish with a visible outcome. Task significance is the impact that completion of the job has on the lives of other people (internal or external to the work environment). Autonomy refers to the level of independence an employee has in scheduling and performing their job tasks. Feedback is the extent that the work environment provides employees with clear and direction about their performance (Brief & Aldag, 1975; Dunham, 1976; Hackman & Oldham, 1975). Job scope is an aggregation of the levels of each job dimension existing in a particular job. Based on the JCM, higher levels of the five dimensions should equate to greater job scope, which should provide a more positive job experience for employees (Blau, 1987; Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). The method for determining job scope has varied (Hackman & Oldham, 1975; 1976; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Originally, Hackman and Oldham (1975) used a motivating potential score (MPS) to calculate the scope of a job, which is derived from measurements obtained by the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS). The formula for MPS takes into account all five job characteristics. The mean of skill variety, task identity, and task significance is calculated. Then, that mean is multiplied by autonomy and feedback. The JCM-specified formula for MPS is: 13 Hackman and Oldham (1976) had some concerns about the formula for MPS due to its additive and multiplicative nature. When using the formula above, if either autonomy or feedback are close to zero for a job, then the entire MPS will be near zero. However, low skill variety, task identity, or task significance will not have the same effect on overall MPS. Hackman and Oldham (1976) developed four additional models for combining the five job characteristics (i.e., full multiplicative, simple additive, multiple regression, and cross-validated regression) and then correlated the scores with three outcome variables: internal motivation, general satisfaction, and growth satisfaction. Although the full multiplicative model performed the worst and the regression models the best at predicting the three outcome variables, the differences between the models were so small as to have no meaningful difference. Given varying circumstances, the five job characteristics should lead to the critical psychological states. Skill variety, task identity, and task significance produced experienced meaningfulness, which is the value and worth of the job felt by the employee. Autonomy produces experienced responsibility which refers to an employee?s feeling of personal accountability. Feedback produces knowledge of results, meaning the employee receives information about their effectiveness on the job (Brief & Aldag, 1975; Dunham, 1976; Hackman & Oldham, 1975). Jobs with varying levels of the five dimensions (i.e., varying MPS scores) can affect employees differentially. Employees who want individual growth and development experiences in their job (i.e., GNS) should respond positively when working in a job with high levels of the job dimensions. Conversely, employees who do not have a high need for growth may experience anxiety and feel extended by a job that has high job dimensions (Hackman & Oldham, 1975). 14 In Hackman and Oldham's model (1975), GNS acts as a moderator, influencing the relationship between job characteristics and dependent variables (e.g., job satisfaction, performance). For example, employees with high GNS responded more positively to a complex job than employees with low GNS (Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Hackman & Oldham, 1975). In the research literature, GNS has shown inconsistencies in operating as a moderator in relationships with work-related outcomes (e.g., Evans, Kiggundu, & House, 1979; Fok, Hartman, Patti, & Razek, 1999; Graen, Scandura, & Graen, 1986; Kemp & Cook, 1983; Shalley, Gilson, & Blum, 2009). Some researchers have argued against the use of GNS as a moderator of job characteristics-work outcome relationships due to these inconsistencies (Loher et al., 1985; Roberts & Glick, 1981). Researchers have compared GNS to openness to experience from the FFM of personality (de Jong et al., 2001; McCrae, 1996). Openness to experience is a general preference for variety and a need for understanding and change. De Jong et al. (2001) found a correlation of r = .56, p < .05 between openness to experience and GNS. Due to these inconsistent findings, its similarity to openness to experience, and interest in the relationship of the FFM and perfectionism with the JCM, the current study did not include GNS. Since Hackman and Oldham (1975) developed the JCM, several researchers have examined its validity. Hackman and Oldham used a heterogeneous sample of individuals and jobs in developing the JCM. Wall, Clegg, and Jackson (1978) tested the model using a homogeneous group of shop-floor employees. Wall et al. reproduced the JCM and concluded that the model is relevant to homogeneous groups as well. The results also showed that experienced meaningfulness plays an important role in the JCM while experienced responsibility also plays a significant role albeit a weaker one. Knowledge of results had an insignificant role. Loher et al. (1985) conducted a meta-analysis on the relationship between the JCM and job 15 satisfaction. The mean corrected correlations for the five job characteristics with job satisfaction ranged from rc = .32 to .46, but no one characteristic had a stronger relationship with job satisfaction than any other. Given this result, the dimensionality of the JCM (Hackman & Oldham, 1975; 1976) is questioned. Loher et al. suggested that the JCM describes overall job complexity rather than distinct job characteristics. Fried and Ferris (1987) conducted a meta-analysis of the validity of the JCM. The JCM theorizes that jobs that are enriched and complex (i.e., high in all five job dimensions) are related to higher job satisfaction, motivation, and work performance. The authors found some relationships between the job dimensions and work outcomes, but they concluded results offer only modest support for the JCM. Autonomy and growth satisfaction were strongly, positively related. Skill variety had the strongest relationship with internal work motivation. Task identity had the strongest relationship with performance. Fried and Ferris concluded that the effects of job characteristics on performance vary as a function of individual or situational differences. One criticism of the JCM is its factor structure. Research has found that some of the dimensions of the JCM, specifically skill variety, task significance, and autonomy, have high cross factor loadings when factor analyses are performed on items from the JDS. Some authors suggest that these job dimensions might be part of one dimension (Champoux, 1978; Dunham, 1976; Dunham et al., 1977; Fried & Ferris, 1987). In a factor analysis on the JDS, Idaszak and Drasgow (1987) found six factors rather than five. Reverse-scored items on the JDS defined the sixth factor. After revising those items, they found five factors. Kulik, Oldham, and Langner (1988) tested the JDS using original items along with the five revised items used by Idaszak and Drasgow (1987). The results were somewhat consistent with Idaszak and Drasgow but the revised items did not improve the JDS's prediction of employee outcomes. Revisions improved 16 measures of skill variety, task significance, and task identity but not for autonomy and feedback. Given that the revised items did not improve predictions and further analyses of the JDS could be comparable, Kulik et al. (1988) recommended continued use of the original JDS. Another major criticism of the JDS as well as other measures of the JCM (i.e., the Yale Job Inventory and the Job Characteristics Inventory) is that they have relied primarily on self- report ratings of jobs (Fried & Ferris, 1987; Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Sims, Szilagyi, & Keller, 1976). The potential consequence of self-report ratings is common method variance, whereby higher effect sizes may be produced because the data is provided by a common source rather than different raters provide the data. Studies have shown that objective manipulation of a job to enrich job conditions were significantly related to higher ratings by job incumbents (Farh & Scott, 1983; Farr, 1976; Fried & Ferris, 1987; O'Reilly & Caldwell, 1979). For example, when Farh and Scott (1983) manipulated autonomy as low and high for two employee groups, the high autonomy group reported significantly higher levels of autonomy compared to the low autonomy group. However, all ratings are susceptible to human error. Research has produced moderate to good correlations of ratings by others with ratings by employees. These correlations have ranged from approximately .16 (Brief & Aldag, 1978), to .50 (Gould, 1979; Oldham, 1976), and to .85 (Oldham, Hackman, & Pearce, 1976). Although concerns will continue to remain regarding self-report ratings, Fried and Ferris (1987) provided substantial evidence that employee perceived and objective job characteristics are related. When looking at the effect of job characteristics on employees' job satisfaction or other work-related outcomes, employee perceptions may likely be their reality (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). A job can appear to have high autonomy to the outside rater, but the employee does not perceive the same level of autonomy. If outside observers rate the job characteristics of a 17 "job," they may not capture the idiosyncrasies of a particular employee's job situation. When an employee is still in training or is a poor performer, their autonomy level might be much lower than for the average employee. Given the moderate correlations of self and other ratings, self- ratings can be acceptable. Self-ratings are also more convenient to obtain. Yet, whenever self- ratings are used, the potential consequences of common method variance on the results should be considered. Personality Variables Perfectionism. Dating back to the 1970s, perfectionism has been studied and defined in the literature using various models. In the early research on perfectionism, researchers started with the dictionary definition and assumed that all perfectionists display negative behaviors, such as cognitive dysfunction, dichotomous thinking, and overgeneralization (Terry-Short, Owens, Slade, & Dewey, 1995). Perfectionism researchers first studied the construct from a clinical perspective, linking it to physical problems, psychological disorders, unrealistic goals, compulsiveness, procrastination, and fear of failure. Perfectionism is included in the DSM IV ? TR, as one of several criteria for obsessive-compulsive disorder, defined as being unable to complete a task due to overly strict personal standards (Burns, 1983; Chan, 2010; Pacht, 1984). However, other researchers have hypothesized and found evidence for positive characteristics of perfectionism in addition to negative perfectionism. Over the past few decades, many researchers have hypothesized and tested models of perfectionism, which evolved from a uni-dimensional construct to multidimensional construct (Hewitt & Flett, 1991; Hamachek, 1978; Slaney & Ashby, 1996; Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, & Ashby, 2001; Terry-Short et al., 1995). Hewitt and Flett (1991) differentiated between three dimensions of perfectionism: (a) self-oriented, (b) other-oriented, and (c) socially-prescribed. Hewitt and Flett considered all three 18 dimensions pathological in nature. Individuals with self-oriented perfectionism use their own highly set standards to judge their own performance. Other-oriented perfectionists set unrealistic goals for important people in their lives. Socially-prescribed perfectionists believe they must live up to unrealistic standards set by other people (Hewitt & Flett, 1991; Slaney & Ashby, 1996). Significant relationships among these three dimensions of perfectionism and negative characteristics and feelings, such as anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, self-criticism, irrational fears, and lack of constructive thinking have been found (Blankstein, Flett, Hewitt, & Eng, 1993; Flett, Hewitt, & Dyck, 1989; Hewitt & Flett, 1991; Wyatt & Gilbert, 1998). Although many researchers conceptualized perfectionism as a negative trait, others have posited that perfectionism has both negative and positive aspects (Burns & Fedewa, 2005; Hamachek, 1978; Pacht, 1984; Slaney & Ashby, 1996; Terry-Short et al., 1995). Maladaptive versus adaptive perfectionism is a conceptualization held by several researchers (Bergman, Nyland, & Burns, 2007; Flett & Hewitt, 2002; Page, Bruch & Haase, 2008; Slaney et al., 2001). Adaptive perfectionists are able to experience satisfaction from working, modify their standards based on the situation, maintain achievable standards, strive for success, remain relaxed yet careful, complete tasks in a timely manner, and possess reasonable certainty that their actions will lead to particular outcomes. On the other hand, maladaptive perfectionists do not get pleasure from working, set inflexible and unrealistic standards, attempt to avoid errors due to fear of failure, have anxiety toward tasks, procrastinate on tasks, criticize the self harshly when failing at a task, and tend to take compulsive actions. Slaney and Johnson (1992) initially designed the Almost Perfect Scale to measure positive aspects of perfectionism but later added negative aspects, such as anxiety, procrastination, and relationship difficulty. In a qualitative study of self-described perfectionists, 19 Slaney and Ashby (1996) categorized interview responses into three basic characteristics: high personal standards, need for order, and discrepancy. High personal standards refer to maintaining high standards and high expectations for oneself and striving for excellence. Individuals with high need for order are concerned with being neat, organized, and disciplined. High personal standards and need for order are characteristic of adaptive perfectionists. Discrepancy is the individual's feelings of frustration and disappointment for not meeting their high standards. Discrepancy is an important factor for the distress some perfectionists experience. Thus, discrepancy is an indication of maladaptive perfectionism. However, specific situations possibly triggered these dimensions of perfectionism (Flett & Hewitt, 2002; Slaney, Rice, & Ashby, 2002). Slaney et al. (2001) modified Slaney and Johnson's (1992) scale to create the Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (APS-R) which measures the three dimensions identified by Slaney and Ashby (1996). Although perfectionism has been categorized in several ways, the structure hypothesized by Slaney et al. (2001) found adequate fit for the APS-R via confirmatory factor analysis. Therefore, Slaney et al.'s factor structure will be used for the perfectionism construct in the current study. Perfectionism and job characteristics. An extensive search of academic databases was performed, and published research on perfectionism's relationship to job characteristics was non- existent. The relationships of perfectionism dimensions (i.e., high personal standards, need for order, and discrepancy) could be highly varied. Employees high in adaptive perfectionism may prefer more autonomy because they are able to set their own standards and fulfill their need for order. Similarly, skill variety could provide some employees with opportunities to excel in several areas whereas for others being able to excel in one area is enough to meet their standards. Task identity should provide employees high in perfectionism with the opportunities to see their 20 accomplishments in performing a function for their employer. High task significance may provide perfectionists with their reason to strive for excellence because they want to create the best product possible. Feedback should also be a positive job characteristic because employees are able to keep track of whether they met their own standards. However, maladaptive perfectionists, with too much feedback, may increase their feelings of discrepancy because they perpetually feel they do meet their own standards. In general, given the characteristics of adaptive and maladaptive perfectionists, it is expected that jobs with more autonomy, skill variety, task identity, task significance, and feedback (i.e., more job scope) will provide environments where adaptive perfectionists will have positive outcomes, such as less burnout, more job satisfaction, and higher organizational commitment. On the other hand, these job characteristics may not be conducive for maladaptive perfectionists if the environment provides multiple opportunities for judging themselves against their own standards. Thus, maladaptive perfectionists may possibly experience more burnout, less job satisfaction, and lower organizational commitment. Five factor model of personality. The FFM of personality resulted from many efforts by researchers to create a taxonomy for personality beginning in the 1930s and continuing into the 1960s (Borgatta, 1964; Cattell, 1948; Fiske, 1949; Hakel, 1974; McDougall, 1932; Norman, 1963; Tupes & Christal, 1961). Borgatta (1964) found five stable factors using five different methods to collect data. Norman (1963) gave the five factors the labels of extraversion, emotional stability, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and culture. These labels are commonly used in the literature, although emotional stability is also referred to as neuroticism and culture as openness to experience. The first factor, extraversion, is associated with assertiveness, activity, sociability, and outgoing. Traits for neuroticism include anxiety, depression, emotional 21 instability, anger, and insecurity. A highly agreeable individual should be good-natured, flexible, courteous, forgiving, and tolerant. Conscientiousness is characterized by dependability, thoroughness, responsibility, organization, and planning. The final factor, openness to experience, is associated with being imaginative, broad-minded, intelligent, and cultured (Barrick & Mount, 1993; Costa & McCrae, 1988; McCrae & Costa, 1985). The use of FFM is ubiquitous in the literature, and the FFM has been shown to significantly predict work outcomes, namely performance (Barrick & Mount, 1993). The use of self-report measures of the FFM has produced validity magnitudes in the .20 - .30 range. However, in a meta-analysis of observer ratings of the FFM traits, validities based on single observer of traits were one and a half times larger than self-report ratings (Oh, Wang, & Mount, 2011). FFM and job characteristics. Relationships among traits of the FFM and job characteristics have not been studied extensively. Bipp (2010) studied these relationships using the three critical states of the JCM: experienced meaningfulness (task identity, task significance, and skill variety), experienced responsibility (autonomy), and knowledge of results (feedback). A study by Sutin and Costa (2010) focused on decision making latitude which is an aspect of autonomy. For openness, Bipp (2010) found positive relationships with all three JCM critical states. Sutin and Costa found that openness was positively related to decision latitude. In a theoretical paper, Barrick, Mount, and Li (2013) stated that autonomy and skill variety is important for those high in openness because they would prefer working in an environment allowing divergent thinking and requiring the use of multiple skills. Conscientiousness is positively related to experienced meaningfulness and decision making opportunities (Bipp, 2010; Sutin & Costa, 2010). Barrick et al. hypothesized that task identity and feedback are important job characteristics for employees high in conscientiousness. Task identity allows an employee to 22 see their achievement from start to finish, and feedback lets the employee know if their performance is effective. Applied to the workplace, an employee with high conscientiousness in a job with high task identity may feel more job satisfaction and less burnout because they are able to maintain thoroughness and accuracy for all aspects of the finished product. Higher conscientiousness and high feedback may influence an employee?s job satisfaction and organizational commitment. By receiving more feedback from the job, a conscientious employee will have the opportunities to improve their performance. With improved performance, the employee may feel more satisfied with their work. A conscientious individual may interpret more feedback as the organization taking an interest in and investing in their performance, leading to more commitment. Although Barrick et al. hypothesized these relationships, they have not empirically tested the relationships. Bipp (2010) found that extraversion and all three JCM critical states were positively related. Sutin and Costa (2010) found a positive correlation between extraversion and decision making opportunities. Barrick et al. (2013) cited task significance and feedback as key job characteristics for those high in extraversion. Two of the definitional characteristics of extraversion are gregariousness and desire for rewards and recognition. Task significance provides opportunities for one to see how their work influences others. Feedback gives employees knowledge of their status in comparison to others. Bipp (2010) found a positive relationship between experienced meaningfulness and agreeableness, but Sutin and Costa (2010) found no relationship between agreeableness and decision making opportunities. Neuroticism has negative relationships with autonomy and decision making opportunities (Bipp, 2010; Sutin & Costa, 2010). Barrick et al.?s (2013) hypotheses regarding agreeableness and neuroticism focused on work environment characteristics that provide social support rather than the JCM. 23 Work Outcome Variables Burnout. Job-related burnout is a psychological syndrome characterized by emotional exhaustion, cynicism, inefficacy, poor mental and physical health due to chronic work demands and stressors (Leiter & Maslach, 2004; Martinussen, Richardsen, & Burke, 2007; Spence Laschinger & Finegan, 2008; van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, de Witte & Lens, 2008). The term ?burnout? began to appear in the research literature in the 1970s (Freudenberger, 1975; Maslach, 1976). This initial research grew out of direct experiences of Freudenberger while working for an alternative health care agency and Maslach's study of emotion in the workplace (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). Freudenberg and colleagues had experienced loss of motivation to perform their job and lower organizational commitment. Through interviews with human services workers, Maslach (1976) identified the importance of coping. These first studies of burnout were typically qualitative (e.g., case studies, interviews, observations) and had an applied orientation toward improving the work experience for human services professions. However, researchers identified some common antecedents for burnout across human services jobs, such as becoming emotionally exhausted and detaching oneself from the job in order to protect their emotional well-being. As the research shifted to empirical studies during the 1980s, burnout questionnaires utilized these characteristics (Maslach et al., 2001). The consensus among researchers is that burnout is a multidimensional construct (e.g., Lee & Ashforth, 1990; Maslach, 1976, 1982; Maslach et al., 2001; Pines, Aronson, & Kafry, 1981; Weisberg & Sagie, 1999). Some researchers defined burnout in terms of exhaustion, physically (e.g., low energy and chronic fatigue), emotionally (e.g., feeling depressed, hopeless, or being trapped), and mentally (e.g., development of negative attitudes toward one's adequacy and competency in the workplace; Pines et al., 1981; Weisberg & Sagie, 1999). 24 Maslach and colleagues proposed a perfectionism model, which has become one of the most popular theories (Maslach et al., 2001; Maslach & Jackson, 1986). Maslach et al.'s definition of burnout consists of three dimensions: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and perceived lack of professional efficacy. Emotional exhaustion refers to a depletion of emotional resources available to cope with stressful job demands. Depersonalization is a state of pessimism, cynicism, and indifference. Individuals will expect the worst from others and lean toward uncivil and discourteous behavior, thus creating distance between themselves and others. Perceived lack of professional efficacy is the tendency to judge one's own work as ineffective and insufficient. Maslach and Jackson (1986) initially developed measures of burnout specifically for human services and educator jobs. Later, Maslach, Jackson, and Leiter (1996) published the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Scale (MBI-GS) for use across occupations. Several studies have found evidence for the validity of the MBI-GS as a valid measure of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and perceived lack of professional efficacy (Beckstead, 2002; Lee & Ashforth, 1990; Maslach et al., 2001; Schaufeli, Bakker, Hoogduin, Schapp, & Kladler, 2001) although Lee and Ashforth (1990) found that emotional exhaustion and depersonalization were highly correlated. Burnout and personality. Although most burnout research over the past 30 years has focused mostly on the relationships among burnout and work situations and characteristics of jobs (Best, Stapleton, & Downey, 2005; Maslach et al., 2001), personality characteristics are also important factors to consider when investigating burnout. Some studies have found that personality characteristics explain more variance in burnout than situational factors (Mills & Huebner, 1998). Examples of personality characteristics related to burnout include unassertiveness, submission, anxiety, fear of involvement, impatient, intolerance and lack of self- 25 esteem (Maslach, 1982). Many of the characteristics identified by Maslach are sub-traits in the FFM. For example, unassertiveness denotes low extraversion, anxiety is typical of those high in neuroticism, and intolerance indicates low openness to experience. Several studies have found significant relationships among the dimensions of burnout and the traits of the FFM. Across studies, emotional exhaustion is negatively correlated with openness to experience, conscientiousness, and extraversion and positively correlated with neuroticism. Depersonalization is also negatively correlated with openness to experience, conscientiousness, and extraversion and positively correlated with neuroticism. Perceived lack of professional efficacy is negatively correlated with neuroticism and positively correlated with openness to experience and extraversion (Bakker et al., 2006; de Vries & van Heck, 2002; Kokkinos, 2007; Zellars et al., 2000). Given the definitions of perfectionism and burnout, relationships between the constructs are expected. However, research has not confirmed this expectation. In a study of German teachers, Stoeber and Rennert (2008) found no significant correlations between striving for perfection and emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, perceived lack of professional efficacy, or overall burnout. However, negative reactions to imperfection were significantly correlated with the burnout variables. Thus, Stoeber and Rennert concluded that perfectionism likely is an important factor in job-related stress, coping styles, and burnout. Zhang et al. (2007) found in their fitted model a path coefficient of -.38 for adaptive perfectionism to burnout and a path coefficient of .54 for maladaptive perfectionism to burnout. Freudenberger (1975) found that burnout-related exhaustion was more likely to be associated with perfectionism which may be due to the intense distress resulting from a failure to reach high personal standards. Results from Bergman et al. (2007) provided similar results. Negative perfectionists were more likely to have 26 cognitive dysfunction, ruminate about failure, and set unrealistically high goals. Demands of a job (e.g., psychological work stressors, not enough time to do work, work requiring high levels of effort) can be particularly influential on the development of burnout, especially emotional exhaustion (Houkes, Winants, and Twellaar, 2008). Even if a job does not have high demands, stress could be self-induced via perfectionism. For example, an employee with high personal standards might miss due dates because work never reaches his/her level of perfection. If a perfectionist employee gives into time demands, the work may not meet personal standards resulting in higher levels of discrepancy. Therefore, a combination of perfectionist characteristics and job characteristics could exacerbate the development of burnout symptoms. Burnout and job characteristics. In general, burnout is a result of a dysfunctional relationship between an individual and their work situation. Thus, both the individual and their work environment should be taken into account when studying burnout (Best et al., 2005; Maslach, 2003). Variables studied as precursors to burnout include aspects of the work environment, such as task overload, task significance, feedback, time pressures, role conflict, and autonomy as well as relational variables, such as support from coworkers and supervisors (Maslach et al., 2001). Using Hackman and Oldham's (1975) JDS, Maslach and Jackson (1986) found that more feedback from the job was significantly correlated with lower scores on emotional exhaustion and depersonalization but correlated with higher scores on perceived lack of professional efficacy. Additionally, they found that task significance had a significant, positive correlation with perceived lack of professional efficacy. Houkes et al., 2008 found that job demands such as time constraints and workload were related to emotional exhaustion. Extreme job demands can overtax workers and impede basic needs being met leading to chronic 27 strain and possibly burnout. Job resources, such as autonomy and social support, were negatively related to depersonalization and positively related to perceived lack of professional efficacy. In a meta-analysis, Lee and Ashforth (1996) found negative, but weak, mean correlations (corrected for within-study measurement unreliability) for the relationships of autonomy with both emotional exhaustion (rc = -.15) and depersonalization (rc = -.13). Autonomy had an almost zero mean correlation with lack of professional efficacy. Alarcon (2011) also provided meta- analytic results showing that autonomy was negatively related to all three dimensions of burnout yet the correlations were moderate in strength. Mean weighted correlations corrected for unreliability in predictor and criterion were ? = -.20, -.23, and -.28 for emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and perceived lack of professional efficacy, respectively. An additional factor important for employees having psychological freedom, belongingness, and effective performance is support from coworkers and supervisors. Job resources were negatively related to emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. Yet, when these job resources are lacking, meeting job demands may be more difficult for workers, possibly leading to withdrawal from the job or depersonalization (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Bakker et al., 2003; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001; Houkes et al., 2008; van den Broeck et al., 2008). Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction has is a positive emotional feeling about a current job based on a comparison of one's job to previous work experiences, current expectations, and available alternatives. Another definition is an employee's perception of whether they are a good fit with the job and with the organization (Huang & Hsiao, 2007; Kinicki, McKee-Ryan, Schriesheim, & Carson, 2002; Locke, 1976; McIntyre & McIntyre, 2010; Spagnoli & Caetano, 2012). Researchers and practitioners are concerned with job satisfaction because of its many relationships with other important work-related outcomes, such as higher organizational 28 commitment, better job performance, and more organizational citizenship behaviors as well as lower absenteeism, tardiness, and turnover (Griffin, Hogan, Lambert, Tucker-Gail, & Baker, 2010; Hamidi & Eivazi, 2010; Hom & Griffeth, 1995; Kinicki et al., 2002; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Tung-Chun & Wan-Jung, 2007.). These outcomes can help organizations save money via higher productivity, retention of employees, and enhanced employee morale (Balzer et al., 2000; Cohrs, Abele, & Dette, 2006; Hulin & Judge, 2003; Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001; Kinicki, et al., 2002; Warr, 1999). Additionally, high job satisfaction can spillover to an employee's personal life, evidenced in higher life satisfaction and physical and mental health (Balzer et al., 2000; Bowling, Eschleman, & Wang, 2010; Cohrs et al., 2006). Thus, job satisfaction can have far-reaching effects for the individual employee, the organization, and others outside the organization. Although individuals often refer to job satisfaction in a global sense, the construct is frequently studied as a multidimensional construct (Balzer et al., 2000; Gregson, 1990; Jung, Dalessio, & Johnson, 1986; Smith, Smith & Rollo, 1974; Yeager, 1981). Job satisfaction consists of various attitudes toward complex tasks, roles, and rewards, and these attitudes can vary in strength by individual (Locke, 1976). For example, an employee may have low satisfaction with their supervision yet high satisfaction with their coworkers. Across research studies, five facets of job satisfaction seem to consistently emerge. Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969) identified four distinct facets (i.e., work itself, pay and promotion, supervision, and coworkers) and a general satisfaction factor. Researchers later separated pay and promotion because attitudes toward pay and promotion could be quite different (Balzer et al., 2000). Smith et al. (1969) incorporated these five factors of satisfaction into the Job Descriptive Index (JDI).Three decades later, the Job in General Index (JIG; Ironson, Smith, Brannick, Gibson, & Paul, 1989) was created to more 29 succinctly measure an individual's general feelings toward their job as opposed to assessing specific facets of job satisfaction. Individuals often complete the JDI and JIG at the same time. Job satisfaction and personality. Researchers have found significant relationships between job satisfaction and the FFM traits. Judge, Heller, and Mount (2002) found that neuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness were all significantly related to job satisfaction. These four factors had a multiple correlation of .41 with job satisfaction. Judge and Bono (2001) found an average correlation of .32 for job satisfaction's relationship with neuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness. Judge, Heller, and Klinger (2008) reported R2 = .23, p < .05 for all five traits combined when predicting self-reported job satisfaction although the unique variance accounted for by the FFM was not significant above that accounted for by positive/negative affectivity and core self-evaluations. Judge et al. (2002) and Judge et al. (2008) found significant relationships among job satisfaction and the five individual traits of the FFM. For neuroticism, significant negative correlations of moderate strength have been reported (e.g., Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000; Judge et al., 2002, 2008). Most likely those with higher levels of neuroticism possess more negative affect which may lead to diminished job satisfaction. Conversely, individuals high in extraversion likely experience more positive affect and are therefore more likely to enjoy work and social situations, thus fostering higher job satisfaction. Research has shown this to be evident with significant correlations with extraversion. Conscientiousness may be related to job satisfaction if the job provides informal rewards such as recognition and respect, and significant correlations have been found between the two variables. The relationship between job satisfaction and agreeableness has produced very weak and mixed correlations (Judge et al., 2002; Judge et al., 2008). Van den Berg and Feij (2003) found significant correlations with job satisfaction for extraversion (r = .21, p < .01) and 30 neuroticism (r = -.18, p < .01). Furnham, Petrides, Jackson, and Cotter (2002) found that conscientiousness and openness was significantly and positively related to job satisfaction's aspects of motivation (e.g., opportunities for personal growth and promotion, recognition, responsibility, influence, job interest). However, only conscientiousness was a significant predictor of global job satisfaction. Research on the relationship between job satisfaction and perfectionism is not as prevalent as the burnout research. Some research has examined the relationship between perfectionism and satisfaction that is more global than job satisfaction, such as life satisfaction. Some early researchers of perfectionism (e.g., Hamachek, 1978; Pacht, 1984) described neurotic perfectionists as individuals who are not able to feel satisfaction about accomplishments because in their eyes they can never reach the standards they set for themselves. Thus, achievement produces no satisfaction because they only met their expectations. However, adaptive perfectionists get pleasure from exerting effort on the job and can feel pride about achievements. They are more likely to experience satisfaction because they accept any external rewards as approval above and beyond their internal approval. Adaptive perfectionists, compared to maladaptive perfectionists, are more likely to use healthy coping strategies, self-assess in a positive manner, and have higher life satisfaction (Bergman et al., 2007; Burns & Fedewa, 2005; Mitchelson & Burns, 1998; Stoeber & Stoeber, 2009). Chang (2006) correlated global life satisfaction with self-oriented perfectionism (i.e., individuals internally motivated to have high standards) and socially-prescribed perfectionism (i.e., individuals externally motivated to have high standards for acceptance by others). Chang found that life satisfaction was related to positive, self-oriented perfectionism (r = .45, p < .001) and positive socially-prescribed perfectionism (r = .26, p < .001). In contrast, life satisfaction was negatively related to negative 31 self-oriented perfectionism (r = -.33, p < .001) and negative socially-prescribed perfectionism (r = -.31, p < .001). Based on research, positive aspects of perfectionism are positively related to life satisfaction whereas negative aspects are negatively related. Perfectionism's influence on individuals' life satisfaction could possibly spillover to many aspects of their life, including work. Therefore, an employee with positive perfectionism may be expected to be satisfied with their job while negative perfectionists would not be satisfied or would be dissatisfied with their job. Job satisfaction and job characteristics. Several studies have linked job satisfaction and the job characteristics from Hackman and Oldham's (1975) model. Brief and Aldag (1975) found that overall job satisfaction was significantly related to skill variety, autonomy, task identity, and feedback. Skill variety was significantly related to specific job satisfaction dimensions of work itself, supervision, pay, and promotion opportunities (Smith et al., 1969). Autonomy had positive, significant correlations with all five of the job satisfaction dimensions. Task identity was significantly related to only the work itself and supervision. Feedback was positively related to all dimensions. Brief and Aldag also found that GNS moderated the relationship among job dimensions and affective responses about work, finding that the stronger relationship was for those with higher GNS. Walsh, Taber, and Beehr (1980) also found significant correlations between job satisfaction and skill variety, autonomy, task identity, and feedback for samples of shop, office, and management workers. For task identity, the correlations for all three groups ranged from r = .28, p < .01 to r = .33, p < .01. For the other job dimensions, the range of correlations was greater for the three groups. Office employees had the strongest relationship with feedback (r = .28, p < .01), but the correlations for shop (r = .12, p < .01) and management (r = .20, p < .01) were weaker. For autonomy, management workers had the strongest 32 relationship (r = .38, p < .01) for job satisfaction, with shop employees having the next strongest relationship (r = .31, p < .01) and office workers the weakest (r = .24, p < .05). Skill variety did not have a significant relationship with job satisfaction for office workers, but the correlations for shop employees (r = .32, p < .01) and management employees (r = .20, p < .01) were significant. These results demonstrate that employees in different types of jobs can prefer varying job requirements and environment. Two separate meta-analyses were conducted by Loher et al. (1985) and Fried and Ferris (1987). Loher et al. found that the strength of the overall relationship between job characteristics and job satisfaction relationship was r = .39. The mean corrected correlations for each of the five job characteristics with job satisfaction were: skill variety (r = .14), task significance (r = .38), task identity (r = .32), autonomy (r = .46), and feedback (r = .41). The 95% confidence limits for these mean correlations did not include zero. These results provide practical support for using job enrichment to increase job satisfaction. However, no one job characteristic had a stronger relationship than any other based upon 95% confidence intervals. Further, GNS moderated the relationship between job characteristics and job satisfaction. Thus, enriching the job might not have the same benefits for all employees. Fried and Ferris (1987) found similar results with MPS having a correlation of r = .63 (based on 90% credibility value). For the individual job characteristics, feedback had strongest relationship with job satisfaction (r = .43), and task significance and autonomy having the next strongest relationships (r = .35). Organizational commitment. The construct of organizational commitment has evolved over the years. Some researchers hypothesized the construct as one factor (e.g., Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979; Wiener, 1982) while others hypothesized it as multiple factors (e.g., Allen & Meyer, 1990; O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986). Regardless of the dimensionality, most researchers 33 agree that organizational commitment is a stabilizing force that directs behavior or from another perspective and restricts courses of action (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). Porter, Steers, Mowday, and Boulian (1974) define organizational commitment as the individual's identification with and involvement in an organization. Employee's strong acceptance of the values and goals of the organization reflects high organizational commitment. Individuals high in organizational commitment are willing to exert significant effort on behalf of their employer, have a desire to maintain membership in the organization, and sometimes form an attachment based on rewards (Mowday et al., 1979; Porter et al., 1974; Steers, 1977). Organizational commitment is an important work attitude for organizations because it is related to stability, performance, effort and motivation, absenteeism, and retention and turnover (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Atchinson & Lefferts, 1972; Giffords, 2009; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). Mowday et al. (1979) conceptualized organizational commitment as a construct consisting of one factor. They developed the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) and found it measured one factor using factor analysis. However, other researchers have utilized the construct assuming multi-dimensionality. Most notable of these multi-dimensional constructs is Allen and Meyer's (1990) theory, which states that organizational commitment consists of three types of commitments: affective, continuance, and normative. Affective commitment refers to an emotional attachment to an organization where the employee identifies with the organization and enjoys being a member. Continuance commitment refers to an employee's desire to stay with the current organization because outside opportunities are non-existent. Normative commitment is an employee's belief that they have a moral obligation to remain in the organization. 34 In contrast to Allen & Meyer's (1990) theory of three components of organizational commitment, Solinger, van Olffen, and Roe (2008) posited that continuance and normative commitment are not actually forms of organizational commitment, leaving only affective commitment as the only type of organizational commitment. Solinger et al. base this upon the idea that attitudes have a focal target. The focal target for affective commitment is the organization itself. Continuance and normative commitment involve making a decision to stay or leave the organization. Therefore, from Solinger et al.'s perspective, affective commitment is the only component that truly represents organizational commitment. Solinger et al. defined organizational commitment as an employee attitude formed from the combination of affect, cognition, and action readiness. Affect refers to an employee's attachment to the organization. Cognition involves identification with the organization and the internalization of its goals. Action readiness refers to potential for serving the organization to helping to meet its goals. In other research, affective commitment has stronger relationships with more organizational variables than other types of organizational commitment (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). For example, in their meta-analysis of the three components of organizational commitment, Meyer et al. (2002) reported a weighted average corrected correlation between affective commitment and overall job satisfaction as ? = .65, but only ? = .31 and ? = -.07 for normative and continuance commitment, respectively. Additionally, the correlations with performance were ? = .16 for affective commitment, ? = .06 for normative commitment, and ? = -.07 for continuance commitment. The current study will focus on a general organizational commitment construct that consists mainly of affective aspects (Mowday et al., 1979). 35 Organizational commitment and personality. The relationships between organizational commitment and the FFM have been somewhat inconsistent. Erdheim, Wang, and Zickar (2006) examined the relationships of affective, continuance, and normative commitment with traits of the FFM. They found that affective commitment was positively correlated with conscientiousness and extraversion. Other researchers have found a positive relationship for affective commitment with conscientiousness (Meyer et al., 2002) and with extraversion (Kell and Motowidlo, 2012). Kell and Motowidlo (2012) also found a positive correlation for affective commitment and agreeableness. Erdheim et al. (2006) found continuance commitment to be positively related to conscientiousness and neuroticism but negatively related to openness to experience and extraversion. Normative commitment had significant but somewhat weak positive relationship with extraversion and agreeableness. Tziner, Waismal-Manor, Vardi, and Brodman (2008) examined the relationships of the FFM using a uni-dimensional definition of organizational commitment. Overall, organizational commitment was positively related to openness to experience, agreeableness, negatively related to conscientiousness, and not related to extraversion and neuroticism. Based on a broad search of the literature, research on the relationship between perfectionism and organizational commitment is scarce. The perfectionism model used in the current study is a multi-dimensional construct consisting of high personal standards, need for order, and discrepancy (Slaney & Ashby, 1996; Slaney et al., 2001). Individuals with high personal standards maintain high expectations for self and strive for excellence. To attain excellence at work, an employee may need to demonstrate to organizational leadership an investment in the organization's mission, values, and goals. To demonstrate that investment, the employee may develop more organizational commitment in the process. Individuals with higher 36 need for order are concerned with being neat, organized, and disciplined. An employee with a high need for order may likely develop organizational commitment if the organization also values order and discipline and the job allows them to fulfill those needs. Discrepancy is an individual's feelings of frustration and disappointment for not meeting high personal standards. If an employee is in a work environment that does not allow them to meet their personal standards, the employee will likely become frustrated and disappointed. This frustration and disappointment may prevent the employee from developing an attachment to the organization. Organizational commitment and job characteristics. Research on the relationships between organizational commitment and job characteristics has found relationships between organizational commitment and autonomy, task identity, skill variety, feedback, and overall job scope. Several researchers have found a positive relationship between organizational commitment and autonomy (Colarelli, Dean, & Konstans, 1987; Giffords, 2009; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Meyer and Allen (1991) did not measure autonomy but instead measured levels of decision making and decentralization of decision making. Although they did not use a direct measure of autonomy, job autonomy involves having control over how to conduct one's job tasks which can include decision making. Both of these variables were positively related to affective commitment. Steers (1977) found a positive relationship between task identity and organizational commitment. Positive correlations have been found between skill variety and organizational commitment (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Steers (1977) found a positive relationship between organizational commitment and feedback. Other studies have examined job characteristics as a whole in relation to organizational commitment. When combining all five job characteristics into job scope, Steers (1977) found correlations of r = .64, p < .001 and r = .38, p < .01 for samples of hospital employees and scientists/engineers, respectively. Other studies have found a positive 37 relationship between job scope and organizational commitment (Blau, 1987; Steers & Spencer, 1977). In their meta-analytic results, Mathieu and Zajac (1990) found a mean correlation of rc = .50 (when correcting for attenuation) for job scope and organizational commitment. 38 Present Study The present study examines a potential moderator in the relationships between personality and the work-related outcomes of burnout, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Based upon the theory of interactionism, individuals' responses in the workplace will result from a combination of individual personality traits and characteristics of the work environment (Endler & Magnusson, 1976; Mischel, 1977; Mischel & Shoda, 1995, 1998). The aggregation of the JCM dimensions, job scope, is being proposed as a moderator of the relationships between personality and burnout, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment (Hackman & Oldham, 1975). Personality in the present study is represented by the FFM and perfectionism. The FFM proposes that an individual's personality can be explained by five general dimensions. The FFM has been studied extensively in organizational research and has been found to be related to job characteristics and evidence exists of the FFM's prediction of work-related outcomes (Bakker et al., 2006; Barrick et al., 2013; Bipp, 2010; Erdheim et al., 2006; Judge & Bono, 2001; Judge et al., 2008; Kell & Motowidlo, 2012; Kokkinos, 2007; Sutin & Costa, 2010). A caveat with using a general trait theory is that the dimensions of personality are sometimes regarded as distal predictors of outcomes (Funder, 2001; Schneider, Hough, & Dunnette, 1996). Therefore, perfectionism is being included in the present study as a more specific dimension of personality. Research on perfectionism's relationships with the JCM dimensions appears to be non-existent in the extant literature. Additionally, the quantity of research on the relationships of perfectionism with job satisfaction and organizational commitment is scarce. Given this lack of research, the present study provides a unique 39 contribution to the literature by including perfectionism in a study of Hackman and Oldham's (1975) job characteristics as moderators of the relationships between personality and burnout, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. The situational contexts of workplaces can vary widely. In addition to employees' personality traits, the particular aspects of work contexts play a role in the behavior of employees. Depending upon the traits of employees, the work context can affect individual employees differentially. In the context of work, the interaction of personality and situation can is described as P-J fit, which occurs when the needs of the employee are met by the particulars of the job context (Cooper et al., 2001; Dawis, 1992; Judge & Kristof-Brown, 2004; Kulik et al., 1987; Meyer & Allen, 1991; Warr & Inceoglu, 2012). The premise of the JCM (Hackman & Oldham, 1975) is that when a job has higher levels of autonomy, task identity, skill variety, task significance, and feedback, an employee will have more positive experiences in the workplace (Blau, 1987; Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). However, the role of personality needs to be taken into account when predicting if a job situation will be positive or negative for an individual. Studies have found that for those with certain personality traits (e.g., need for growth) will have more positive reactions to their workplace when the scope of the job is more complex (Brief & Aldag, 1975; Loher et al., 1985). Therefore, in the present study, job scope will evaluated as a moderator of the relationships that the FFM and perfectionism have with burnout, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. ? Hypothesis 1: Job scope will moderate the relationships of maladaptive perfectionism, extraversion, conscientiousness, and neuroticism with burnout, such that individuals with higher extraversion and conscientiousness, lower neuroticism and maladaptive perfectionism, and broader job scope will experience less burnout. 40 ? Hypothesis 2: Job scope will moderate the relationships of adaptive perfectionism, extraversion, conscientiousness, and neuroticism with job satisfaction, such that individuals with higher extraversion, conscientiousness, and adaptive perfectionism, lower neuroticism, and broader job scope will experience more job satisfaction. ? Hypothesis 3: Job scope will moderate the relationships of adaptive perfectionism, maladaptive perfectionism, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism with organizational commitment, such that individuals with higher adaptive perfectionism, extraversion and agreeableness, lower maladaptive perfectionism and neuroticism, and broader job scope will experience more organizational commitment. In addition to job scope, research has found the individual dimensions of the JCM are differentially related to burnout, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment (e.g., Alarcon, 2011; Colarelli et al., 1987; Fried & Ferris, 1987; Houkes et al., 2008; Loher et al., 1985; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Individual JCM dimensions should predict different work-related outcomes because each dimension represents a different aspect of a job. However, not all of the dimensions have significant relationships with all three work-related outcomes. Based upon existing research, specific hypotheses were generated for the moderation of personality-work outcomes by individual JCM dimensions. Researchers have found that burnout is negatively related to autonomy and feedback (Alarcon, 2011; Houkes et al., 2008; Lee & Ashforth, 1996; Maslach & Jackson, 1986). In the context of work, high autonomy would indicate a weak situation and high feedback would indicate a strong situation. High autonomy in a job allows employees more freedom in selecting their own work behaviors and deciding on the pace of completing tasks. More feedback about 41 job performance may sometimes be associated with more directions and instructions and thus constraints on how to perform the job (Hackman & Oldham, 1975). Based on situation strength research, weak and strong situations can produce differential relationships between personality and work-related outcomes (Adler & Weiss, 1988; Barrick & Mount, 1993; Beaty et al., 2001; Gellatly & Irving, 2001; Mischel, 1968, 1977; Monson et al., 1984; Tett & Burnett, 2003; Withey et al., 2005). Therefore, it is anticipated that for burnout, both autonomy and feedback will moderate burnout?s relationship with personality. ? Hypothesis 4a: Autonomy will moderate the relationships of maladaptive perfectionism extraversion, conscientiousness, and neuroticism with burnout, such that individuals with higher extraversion and conscientiousness, lower neuroticism and maladaptive perfectionism, and higher job autonomy will experience less burnout. ? Hypothesis 4b: Feedback will moderate the relationships of maladaptive perfectionism extraversion, conscientiousness, and neuroticism with burnout, such that individuals with higher extraversion and conscientiousness, lower neuroticism and maladaptive perfectionism, and more feedback in their job will experience less burnout. Multiple studies have found that job satisfaction is significantly and positively related to all five JCM dimensions (Brief & Aldag, 1975; Fried & Ferris, 1987; Loher et al., 1985; Walsh et al., 1980). A job with high skill variety will entail an employee performing various activities and using various skills, thus it should be a weak situation because employees are not constrained to one specific task. In a job with high task identity, employees are able to see their work from start to finish. Being able to see the entire process should be indicative of a weak 42 situation. Task significance refers to perceived impact that one?s work has on the lives of other people. High task significance in a job is likely a weak situation because the employee is knowledgeable that their performance efforts are meaningful because they impact others inside or outside the organization. Given that research results have found relationships between job satisfaction and the dimensions, it is expected that each of the five JCM dimensions will moderate the relationship between personality and job satisfaction in the present study. ? Hypothesis 5a: Task Identity will moderate the relationships of adaptive perfectionism, extraversion, conscientiousness, and neuroticism with job satisfaction, such that individuals with higher adaptive perfectionism, extraversion, and conscientiousness, lower neuroticism, and more task identity in their job will experience more job satisfaction. ? Hypothesis 5b: Task significance will moderate the relationships of adaptive perfectionism, extraversion, conscientiousness, and neuroticism with job satisfaction, such that individuals with higher adaptive perfectionism, extraversion, and conscientiousness, lower neuroticism, and more task significance will experience more job satisfaction. ? Hypothesis 5c: Autonomy will moderate the relationships of adaptive perfectionism extraversion, conscientiousness, and neuroticism with job satisfaction, such that individuals with higher adaptive perfectionism, extraversion, and conscientiousness, lower neuroticism, and higher job autonomy will experience more job satisfaction. ? Hypothesis 5d: Feedback will moderate the relationships of adaptive perfectionism extraversion, conscientiousness, and neuroticism with job satisfaction, such that individuals with higher adaptive perfectionism, extraversion, and conscientiousness, 43 lower neuroticism, and more feedback in their job will experience more job satisfaction. ? Hypothesis 5e: Skill variety will moderate the relationships of adaptive perfectionism extraversion, conscientiousness, and neuroticism with job satisfaction, such that individuals with higher adaptive perfectionism, extraversion, and conscientiousness, lower neuroticism, and more skill variety in their job will experience more job satisfaction. Studies have found positive relationships between organizational commitment and autonomy, skill variety, task identity, and feedback (Colarelli et al., 1987; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1991; Steers, 1977). Although the relationship of organizational commitment with task identity and feedback were significant, they were also quite weak, r = .13 and r = .17, respectively (Steers, 1977). Employees who have jobs that have high autonomy and require more skill variety may develop higher organizational commitment because they believe the organization trusts them to conduct their work independently and recognizes the numerous skills they possess. Therefore, it is expected that autonomy and skill variety will moderate the relationship between personality and organizational commitment. ? Hypothesis 6a: Autonomy will moderate the relationships of maladaptive perfectionism, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and neuroticism with organizational commitment, such that individuals with higher extraversion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness, lower neuroticism and maladaptive perfectionism, and higher job autonomy will experience more organizational commitment. 44 ? Hypothesis 6b: Skill variety will moderate the relationships of maladaptive perfectionism extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and neuroticism with organizational commitment, such that individuals with higher extraversion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness, lower neuroticism and maladaptive perfectionism, and more skill variety in their job will experience more organizational commitment. 45 Methods Sample Participants were recruited through the StudyResponse Project website. This website was administered by the School of Information Studies at Syracuse University (http://studyresponse.syr.edu/studyresponse/) at the time data was collected. StudyResponse is a non-profit service to provide researchers with diverse samples in terms of age, educational level, and occupation. Socially desirable responding can be reduced using StudyResponse because data collection about individuals' employment is not affiliated with their employers (Orvis & Leffler, 2011). Individuals who participated in the current study had to be 19 years of age or older and work at least 20 hours per week. Individuals in the StudyResponse database who met the criteria of being 19 years of age or older and working 20 hours per week were recruited via email, which provided a survey link to the participants. The total number of participants was 305, consisting of 194 males (64.0%) and 111 females (36.0%). The mean age of participants was 35.8 years (SD = 8.3) and ranged 19 to 65 years old. Of those participants who identified their race, 244 (80.0%) were White/European- American, seven (2.3%) Black/African-American, 21 (6.8%) Asian-American, 10 (3.3%) Hispanic, 11 (3.6%) Native American, and 10 (3.3%) Other. The remaining four (1.3%) participants' races were Arab/Middle Eastern, Pacific Islander, or Multiracial. Education level was grouped into four categories. Nineteen percent (n = 57) had less than a 4-year college degree, 47% (n = 143) had a 4-year college degree, 28% (n = 87) had either some graduate school or a Master's degree, and 6.0% (n = 20) had a PhD, MD, JD, or other advanced degree. 46 Measures Demographics. Participants provided basic demographic information, including gender, age, race, education level, income, and hours worked per week. In the present study, education level was treated as a control variable. Education level may limit the types of jobs an individual available for some people while for others, their education may open up numerous opportunities. For example, factory line jobs may have less autonomy, require less skill variety, and have less task identity because the employee is responsible for only one portion of the production process. However, individuals with higher levels of education have more opportunities for jobs with higher levels of all five job characteristics. A copy of the demographic questionnaire is located in Appendix A. Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS). The JDS (Hackman & Oldham, 1975) measures the level of the five dimensions of the JCM. The survey includes 15 items, three items for each of the five dimensions. A seven-point Likert-type scale is used ranging from1 (low) to 7 (high). Hackman and Oldham (1975) reported the internal consistency alphas for each dimension: skill variety (? = .71), task identity (? = .59), task significance (? = .66), autonomy (? = .66), and feedback from the job (? = .71). In a more recent study, Kuo and Ho (2010) found alpha coefficients of .90, .87, .87, .95, and .86 for skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback, respectively. A mean score was calculated for each of the five dimensions. The Hackman and Oldham 1975) formula was used to calculate job scope: the mean of skill variety, task identity, and task significance was calculated and then multiplied by autonomy and feedback scores. Note: One item of the JDS was mistakenly repeated during the administration of this study, leaving only two items for feedback. Therefore, the mean of the two items was used as the participants? feedback score. A copy of the JDS is located in Appendix A. 47 Almost Perfect Scale ? Revised (APS-R). The APS-R (Slaney et al., 2001) measures adaptive and maladaptive dimensions of perfectionism. The APS-R contains 23 items which are divided into three subscales: high personal standards (seven items), need for order (four items), and discrepancy (12 items). High standards measures high personal standards and performance expectations. An example item for high standards is ?I expect the best from myself.? Need for order measures preferences for orderliness and organization. An example item for order is ?I think things should be put away in their place.? Discrepancy measures perceptions that one constantly fails to meet their high standards, which is the negative characteristic of perfectionism. An example item for discrepancy is ?I often feel disappointment after completing a task because I know I could have done better.? Participants respond to items using a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Examples of items from the APS-R are ?I am not satisfied even when I know I have done my best? and ?I rarely live up to my high standards? (Ganske & Ashby, 2007; Rice & Ashby, 2007; Wang, Slaney, & Rice, 2007; Slaney et al., 2001). In the current study, the score for adaptive perfectionism is the mean of the need for order and high personal standards subscales, and the score for maladaptive perfectionism is the mean of the discrepancy subscale. International Personality Inventory Pool (IPIP). Traits of the FFM were measured by items from the IPIP. The IPIP is a collection of personality measures developed by Goldberg (1999) and available for use via the internet (http://ipip.ori.org/). A 50-item scale, which included 10 items per personality factor, was administered to participants, and items were presented in random order. Each item consists of a short descriptive statement. For example, one item for conscientiousness is ?make plans and stick to them,? and an item for extraversion is ?am the life of the party.? The participants were asked to rate each statement on how accurately it 48 described them using a five-point scale (1 = very inaccurate to 5 = very accurate; Goldberg, 1990; Goldberg et al., 2006). A copy of the IPIP is located in Appendix A. Maslach Burnout Inventory ? General Survey (MBI-GS). The MBI-GS (Maslach & Jackson, 1981; 1986) measures three dimensions of burnout: emotional exhaustion (9 items), depersonalization (5 items), and professional efficacy (8 items). Emotional exhaustion measures employees' feelings of tension, anxiety, and physical fatigue related to their jobs. An example item for emotional exhaustion is ?I feel emotionally drained by my work.? Depersonalization measures how much participants are uncertain about the significance of their work. An example item for depersonalization is ?I feel I treat some recipients as if they were impersonal objects.? Professional efficacy measures employees? feelings of how well they can deal with problems at work, thus professional efficacy is reverse-coded. An example item for professional efficacy is ?In my work, I deal with emotional problems very calmly.? Responses are made on a seven- point Likert-type scale, ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (every day). The average value for each dimension is calculated. Higher values for emotional exhaustion and cynicism indicate higher levels of burnout (de Hoogh & den Hartog, 2009; Hochw?lder, 2009; Martinussen et al., 2007; Maslach & Jackson, 1984). De Hoogh and den Hartog reported internal consistency alphas of .92 and .90 for the entire scale from two samples. Martinussen et al. reported alphas of .86, .80, and .79 for emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and professional efficacy, respectively. Abridged Job in General Index (AJIG). The AJIG (Ironson et al., 1989) measures global job satisfaction or an individual?s general feelings toward their job. The scale contains eight items with descriptive words and phrases. Participants were asked to indicate if the item describes their job. Items are rated as ?Yes,? ?No,? or ???. Items worded favorably are assigned three points for ?Yes,? zero points for ?No,? and one point for ???. Items that are worded 49 unfavorably were scored similarly but reverse-coded (Balzar et al., 2000). Example items are ?better than most? and ?enjoyable.? Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ). Organizational commitment was measured by the short form of the OCQ (Mowday et al., 1979). This scale consists of nine items that measure employees' overall commitment to the organization. As a whole, the items measure affective commitment in that the items ask about praising the organization to outsiders, telling others they are proud to work there, willingness to go above and beyond expectations, happiness in choosing their organization, and caring about the fate of the organization. Example items are ?I talk up the company as a great organization to my friends," "I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond what is normally expected in order to help this company continue to succeed," and ?I care about the fate of the company.? Items are rated on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The reliability for the OCQ has been reported as ? = .85 (Martinussen et al., 2007). A copy of the OCQ is located in Appendix A. Procedure Criteria for participation were that individuals worked at least 20 hours per week and were at least 19 years of age. Participants received an email from StudyResponse inviting them to participate and providing a link to the survey hosted on Qualtrics.com. When participants clicked on the survey link in the email, they were taken to an online informed consent. The informed consent explained the purpose, any risks or costs of participation, assurance of anonymity, and the approved protocol number from Auburn University's Institutional Review Board. After reading the informed consent, participants clicked the next arrow button to continue with the study. Before responding to the study measures, the participants were then asked to enter an identification number assigned to them by StudyResponse. The measures were 50 administered in two waves. In the first wave, participants completed a demographics questionnaire, the JDS, the IPIP measure of the FFM, and the APS-R. Two weeks later, StudyResponse send a second email to invite participants to complete the second wave of the study. As with the first wave participants made acknowledgement of the informed consent, entered their StudyResponse identification number, and proceeded to the survey. In the second wave, the participants completed the MBI-GS, OCQ, and AJIG scales. The measures were presented in a computer-generated random order in both waves. After completion of each wave of the study, participants received a $5.00 Amazon.com gift card as compensation. 51 Results Test for Common Method Bias Given that the data collected for the present study was all self-report, common method variance was a possibility. Common method variance is attributed to the method of measurement, not the actual constructs of the study. Therefore, if common method variance is present, then the relationships between constructs can be over- or under-estimated (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Harman's single-factor test is one of the most widely used methods to address common method variance as well as one of the most rigorous tests (Podsakoff et al., 2003). All variables are loaded into an exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and the unrotated factor solution is checked for the number of factors that account for the variance. If a substantial amount of common method variance is present, the Harman's test results will show a single factor accounting for a majority of the covariance among the variables (Podsakoff et al., 2003; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986; Shalley et al., 2009). In the present study, all items (i.e., 122 items) were entered into an EFA using principal components extraction. An examination of total covariance explained and the scree plot revealed that the EFA extracted seven factors. Therefore, the influence of common method variance should not have an overwhelming influence on the present study's results. Although Harman's single-factor test is widely used by researchers, it is a diagnostic technique, not a method to statistically control for common method variance. However, the results of Harman's one factor test show that common method bias should not be a major problem for this study's results. 52 Descriptives and Correlations Table 1 provides the means and standard deviations for the major variables of the study. Table 2 provides the intercorrelations and coefficient alphas for all major variables. The recommended reliability coefficient for research purposes is .70 or greater (Nunnally, 1978). All of the major variables in the current study had alpha coefficients of .72 or greater. Moderation Analyses for Job Scope To test Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 (i.e., that job scope moderates the relationship of personality with burnout, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment), three separate hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted for each dependent variable. The predictors (i.e., FFM, perfectionism) and the moderator (i.e., job scope, autonomy, skill variety, task identity, task significance, and feedback) were centered by subtracting the relevant mean from item values. Centering variables helps reduce levels of multicollinearity introduced in multiple regression and can make uninterpretable regression coefficients meaningful (Aiken & West, 1991; Cohrs et al., 2006; Gellatly & Irving, 2001; Preacher, 2003). Using the centered variables, interaction terms were created by multiplying the moderator and independent variables. To test moderation, the Baron and Kenny (1986) approach was used to determine if variable interactions alter the strength of the effect of the independent variable(s) on the dependent variable. In the first step of all three regressions, education was entered as a control variable. Education was defined as less than Bachelor's degree, Bachelor's degree, some graduate school or Master's degree, and Doctoral degree. The second step entered relevant personality variables and job scope, and the third step entered the interaction terms for job scope and personality variables. 53 Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables Variable M SD Burnout 3.54 1.01 Job Satisfaction 2.16 0.80 Organizational Commitment 3.74 0.71 Adaptive Perfectionism 5.41 0.84 Maladaptive Perfectionism 4.23 1.47 Extraversion 3.26 0.57 Agreeableness 3.49 0.57 Conscientiousness 3.54 0.64 Neuroticism 2.68 0.63 Openness to Experience 3.45 0.61 Job Scope 153.86 72.91 Task Identity 5.22 1.09 Task Significance 5.14 1.08 Autonomy 5.29 1.13 Feedback 5.23 1.09 Skill Variety 5.13 1.31 54 Table 2 Zero-Order Correlations among Study Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1. BO .87 2. JSat -.56** .78 3. OC -.35** .60** .90 4. AP -.07 .03 .14* .90 5. MP .58** -.34** -.12* .14* .96 6. EX -.44** .40** .36** .15* -.41** .72 7. AG -.52** .25** .16** .21** -.53** .38** .73 8. CS -.62** .37** .22** .32** -.61** .49** .72** .79 9. NR .57** -.42** -.33** -.15** .60** -.52** -.59** -.61** .74 10. OE -.34** .23** .18** .17** -.36** .41** .51** .53** -.33** .73 11. JS -.12* .26** .38** .30** -.04 .28** .13* .17** -.16** .25** .86 12. TI -.10 .22** .27** .17** -.04 .19** .12* .15* -.08 .17** .68** .78 13. TS -.15** .21** .30** .21** -.11 .24** .15** .21** -.18** .21** .73** .57** .74 14. AUT -.13* .22** .26** .21** -.06 .27** .16** .16** -.14* .28** .85** .54** .58** .83 15. FB -.13* .25** .31** .24** -.05 .21** .05 .12* -.12* .15** .84** .54** .56** .62** .81 16. SV -.04 .18** .29** .24** -.11* .28** .15** .24** -.15** .30** .74** .49** .67** .65** .52** .83 * p < .05. ** p < .01 Note. Numbers on the diagonal are coefficient alpha for the scale. BO = Burnout; JSat = Job Satisfaction; OC = Organizational Commitment, AP = Adaptive Perfectionism; MP = Maladaptive Perfectionism; EX = Extraversion; AG = Agreeableness; CS = Conscientiousness; NR = Neuroticism; OE = Openness to Experience; JS = Job Scope; TI = Task Identity; TS = Task Significance; AUT = Autonomy; FB = Feedback; SV = Skill Variety. 55 Burnout. The personality variables entered for burnout were maladaptive perfectionism, conscientiousness, extraversion, and neuroticism. The addition of personality variables and job scope explained a significant amount of variance beyond education, R2 = .50, F(8, 297) = 36.35, p < .001 (see Table 3). Significant predictors were maladaptive perfectionism, conscientiousness, extraversion, and neuroticism. The addition of personality variable-job scope interactions in step 3 accounted for a significant amount of variance beyond step 2, R2 = .52, F(12, 293) = 26.26, p < .001. However, only the interaction between conscientiousness and job scope was significant, ? = -0.19, t(292) = -3.58, p < .001. Effect size was calculated using Cohen's f2 (Cohen, 1988). The effect size when interactions were added to the hierarchical regression was f2 = 0.04, which is considered small (Cohen, 1988). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was supported only for the moderation of the relationship between conscientiousness and burnout by job scope, but practical significance of the results is low. However, the significant interaction found for conscientiousness and job scope is illustrated in Figure 2. Figure 2 shows that as job scope increases, burnout for those low in conscientiousness increases, but highly conscientiousness individuals show a decrease in burnout. Job satisfaction. The personality variables entered for job satisfaction were adaptive perfectionism, extraversion, conscientiousness, and neuroticism. The addition of personality variables and job scope explained a significant amount of variance beyond education, R2 = .27, F(8,295) = 13.89, p < .001 (see Table 4). Significant predictors were maladaptive perfectionism, conscientiousness, extraversion, and neuroticism. In step 3, the amount of variance explained did not increase significantly, ?R2 = .02, F(4, 291) = 1.80, p = .128. However, the overall model was significant, F(12, 291) = 9.96, p < .001, but no interactions were significant. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was not supported. 56 Table 3 Hierarchical Regression for Burnout Testing Job Scope Moderation b ? t p R2 ?R2 Step 1 Education Less than BA BA MA/Some Grad PhD -0.27 0.24 0.19 -0.10 0.11 0.05 -1.71 1.75 0.78 .089 .082 .437 .03* Step 2 Personality Maladaptive Perfect Conscientiousness Extraversion Neuroticism Job Scope 0.16 -0.47 -0.20 0.31 0.00 0.23 -0.30 -0.11 0.20 -0.02 3.99 -5.10 -2.15 3.32 -0.39 .000 .000 .032 .001 .696 .50 .47** Step 3 Job Scope x Maladaptive Perfect Conscientiousness Extraversion Neuroticism 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 -0.05 -0.19 0.04 -0.02 -0.91 -3.58 0.67 -0.27 .366 .000 .501 .789 .52 .02** * p < .05, **p < .001 Figure 2. Conscientiousness-burnout moderation by job scope 0 1 2 3 4 5 Low Job Scope High Job Scope Burno ut Low Conscientiousness High Conscientiousness 57 Table 4 Hierarchical Regression for Job Satisfaction Testing Job Scope Moderation b ? t p R2 ?R2 Step 1 Education Less than BA BA MA/Some Grad PhD -0.11 0.10 -0.05 -0.05 0.05 -0.02 -0.82 0.87 -0.27 .414 .387 .786 .01 Step 2 Personality Adaptive Perfect Extraversion Conscientiousness Neuroticism Job Scope -0.13 0.25 0.22 -0.28 0.02 -0.14 0.18 0.18 -0.22 0.17 -2.49 2.82 2.57 -3.26 3.14 .013 .005 .011 .001 .002 .27 .26** Step 3 Job Scope x Adaptive Perfect Extraversion Conscientiousness Neuroticism 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.09 -0.06 0.13 -0.10 -1.60 -0.89 1.96 1.55 .110 .376 .051 .123 .29 .02 * p < .05, **p < .001 Organizational commitment. The personality variables entered for organizational commitment were adaptive perfectionism, maladaptive perfectionism, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism. The addition of personality variables and job scope explained a significant amount of variance beyond education, R2 = .27, F(10, 294) = 10.74, p < .001 (see Table 5). Significant predictors were extraversion, neuroticism, and job scope. The addition of personality variable-job scope interactions in step 3 accounted for a significant amount of variance beyond step 2, R2 = .30, F(16, 288) = 7.77, p < .001. The interactions between agreeableness and job scope (? = 0.20, t(287) = 2.51, p = .013) and neuroticism and job scope (? = 0.21, t(287) = 2.92, p = .004) were significant. Effect size when the interactions were added to the hierarchical regression was f2 = .04, which is small (Cohen, 1988). Therefore, 58 Hypothesis 3 was supported only for the moderation of the relationships of agreeableness and neuroticism with organizational commitment by job scope. As seen in Figure 3, when job scope is low, the difference in organizational commitment for those low and high in neuroticism increases. As job scope increases, those high and low in neuroticism begin to have similar levels of organizational commitment. Figure 4 indicates that when job scope increases, individuals low and high in agreeableness have comparable levels of organizational commitment. Table 5 Hierarchical Regression for Organizational Commitment Testing Job Scope Moderation b ? t p R2 ?R2 Step 1 Education Less than BA BA MA/Some Grad PhD 0.01 0.29 -0.19 0.00 0.18 -0.07 0.41 3.02 -1.15 .967 .003 .249 .04* Step 2 Personality Maladaptive Perfect Adaptive Perfect Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Job Scope 0.06 -0.04 0.23 -0.12 0.06 -0.32 0.00 0.12 -0.05 0.19 -0.10 0.05 -0.29 0.28 1.58 -0.77 2.94 -1.26 0.60 -3.90 5.09 .116 .443 .004 .210 .551 .000 .000 .27 .23** Step 3 Job Scope x Maladaptive Perfect Adaptive Perfect Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.05 0.05 0.02 0.20 -0.11 0.21 -0.68 0.72 0.28 2.51 -1.25 2.92 .497 .472 .778 .013 .214 .004 .30 .03* * p < .05, **p < .001 59 Figure 3. Neuroticism-organizational commitment moderation by job scope Figure 4. Agreeableness-organizational commitment moderation by job scope 0 1 2 3 4 5 Low Job Scope High Job Scope Org aniza tio na l Co mm itm ent Low Neuroticism High Neuroticism 0 1 2 3 4 5 Low Job Scope High Job Scope Org aniza tio na l Co mm itm ent Low Agreeableness High Agreeableness 60 Moderation Analyses for Specific Job Characteristics To test Hypotheses 4 ? 6, hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to test the effect of the interactions of personality and specific job characteristics on burnout, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Education was entered in step 1 as a control variable. Personality variables and the relevant job characteristic, and the interactions of personality and the relevant job characteristic were entered into step 3. Burnout. For burnout, two regression analyses were conducted with autonomy and feedback as the moderator variables. The personality variables used for both regressions were maladaptive perfectionism, conscientiousness, extraversion, and neuroticism. For the first regression, autonomy was the moderator. The addition of personality variables and autonomy explained a significant amount of variance beyond education, R2 = .49, F(5,297) = 54.91, p < .001 (see Table 6). Step 2 for this regression was the same as that for testing Hypothesis 1; therefore, significant predictors were maladaptive perfectionism, conscientiousness, extraversion, and neuroticism. The addition of personality variable-autonomy interactions in step 3 accounted for a significant amount of variance beyond step 2, R2 = .51, F(4, 293) = 2.56, p = .04. The interaction between conscientiousness and autonomy was significant, ? = -0.23, t(292) = -2.98, p = .003. Effect size for the moderation was f2 = 0.04 (Cohen, 1988). Therefore, Hypothesis 4a was supported for the moderation of the relationship between conscientiousness and burnout by autonomy. Figure 5 illustrates that when higher job autonomy is present, individuals high in conscientiousness tend to have less burnout. To test feedback as a moderator, the same regression steps were taken as were for autonomy. In step 2, maladaptive perfectionism, conscientiousness, extraversion, and neuroticism were significant predictors (see Table 7). Overall, step 3 did not account for 61 significantly more variance than step 2, R2 = .51, F(4, 293) = 1.11, p = .351. However, the feedback-conscientiousness interaction was significant, ? = -0.10, t(292) = -2.08, p = .038. Effect size for the moderation was f2 = 0.02 (Cohen, 1988). Hypothesis 4b was not supported for the overall model, but feedback did significantly moderate the relationship between feedback and burnout. Figure 6 shows that more feedback is associated with less burnout, however, those high in conscientiousness tend to have less burnout than those low in conscientiousness. Table 6 Hierarchical Regression for Burnout Testing Autonomy Moderation b ? t p R2 ?R2 Step 1 Education Less than BA BA MA/Some Grad PhD -0.27 0.24 0.19 -.10 0.11 0.05 -1.71 1.75 0.78 .089 .082 .437 .03 Step 2 Personality Maladaptive Perfect Extraversion Conscientiousness Neuroticism Autonomy 0.16 -0.19 -0.47 0.31 -0.04 0.23 -0.11 -0.30 0.20 -0.04 4.02 -2.06 -5.02 3.35 -0.96 .000 .040 .000 .001 .339 .49 .46** Step 3 Autonomy x Maladaptive Perfect Extraversion Conscientiousness Neuroticism -0.02 0.02 -0.23 -0.08 -0.03 0.02 -0.18 -0.06 -0.54 0.28 -2.98 -1.03 .590 .776 .003 .303 .51 .02* * p < .05, **p < .001 62 Figure 5. Conscientiousness-burnout moderation by autonomy Table 7 Hierarchical Regression for Burnout Testing Feedback Moderation b ? t p R2 ?R2 Step 1 Education Less than BA BA MA/Some Grad PhD -0.27 0.24 0.19 -.10 0.11 0.05 -1.71 1.75 0.78 .089 .082 .437 .03 Step 2 Personality Maladaptive Perfect Extraversion Conscientiousness Neuroticism Feedback 0.16 -0.19 -0.47 0.31 -0.05 0.23 -0.11 -0.30 0.20 -0.05 4.02 -2.05 -5.11 3.33 -1.26 .000 .041 .000 .001 .208 .50 .47** Step 3 Feedback x Maladaptive Perfect Extraversion Conscientiousness Neuroticism -0.01 0.03 -0.15 -0.01 -0.02 0.02 -0.10 -0.01 -0.38 0.40 -2.08 -0.08 .705 .687 .038 .939 .51 .01 * p < .05, **p < .001 0 1 2 3 4 5 Low Autonomy High Autonomy Burno ut Low Conscientiousness High Conscientiousness 63 Figure 6. Conscientiousness-burnout moderation by feedback Job satisfaction. For job satisfaction, all five job characteristics, task identity, task significance, skill variety, autonomy, and feedback, were tested as moderators for personality and job satisfaction. The personality variables entered in each regression were adaptive perfectionism, extraversion, conscientiousness, and neuroticism. In each of the five regressions conducted, all interaction terms were non-significant. However, there were significant main effects. In the regressions for task identity, task significance, feedback, and autonomy, all personality variables and the job characteristic were significant predictors. In the regression for skill variety, extraversion, conscientiousness, and neuroticism were significant predictors, but adaptive perfectionism and skill variety were not. Hypotheses 5a ? 5e were not supported. Organizational commitment. Autonomy and skill variety were tested as moderators for the personality-organizational commitment relationships. The personality variables used for both regressions were maladaptive perfectionism, extraversion, neuroticism, and agreeableness. For the first regression, autonomy was the moderator. Although the addition of personality variables and autonomy explained a significant amount of variance beyond education, R2 = .22, F(5, 296) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Low Feedback High Feedback Burno ut Low Conscientiousness High Conscientiousness 64 = 13.73, p < .001, none of the interactions were significant predictors (see Table 8). Significant main effects were found for extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, and autonomy. Therefore, Hypothesis 6a was not supported. To test skill variety as a moderator, the same regression steps were taken as were for autonomy. In step 2, extraversion, neuroticism, and agreeableness were significant predictors (see Table 9). Overall, step 3 did not account for significantly more variance than step 2, R2 = .26, F(4, 292) = 1.78, p = .133, yet the overall model was significant, F(12, 292) = 8.33, p < .001. Additionally, the skill variety-neuroticism interaction was significant, ? = 0.18, t(291) = 2.62, p = .009 (see Figure 7 for illustration of the interaction). Effect size for the moderation was f2 = 0.03 (Cohen, 1988). These results provided partial support for Hypothesis 6b. Table 8 Hierarchical Regression for Organizational Commitment Testing Autonomy Moderation b ? t p R2 ?R2 Step 1 Education Less than BA BA MA/Some Grad PhD 0.01 0.29 -0.19 0.00 0.18 -0.07 0.04 3.02 -1.15 .967 .003 .249 .04 Step 2 Personality Maladaptive Perfect Extraversion Neuroticism Agreeableness Autonomy 0.05 0.28 -0.34 -0.11 0.01 0.11 0.22 -0.31 -0.09 0.16 1.58 3.53 -4.05 -1.28 2.85 .115 .000 .000 .203 .005 .22 .18** Step 3 Autonomy x Maladaptive Perfect Extraversion Neuroticism Agreeableness 0.00 0.08 0.09 -0.03 0.00 0.08 0.09 -0.03 0.04 1.14 1.23 -0.38 .965 .255 .219 .706 .23 .01 * p < .05, **p < .001 65 Table 9 Hierarchical Regression for Organizational Commitment Testing Skill Variety Moderation b ? t p R2 ?R2 Step 1 Education Less than BA BA MA/Some Grad PhD 0.01 0.29 -0.19 0.00 0.18 -0.07 0.04 3.02 -1.15 .967 .003 .249 .04 Step 2 Personality Maladaptive Perfect Extraversion Neuroticism Agreeableness Skill Variety 0.06 0.26 -0.35 -0.11 0.11 0.12 0.21 -0.31 -0.09 0.21 1.71 3.39 -4.16 -1.30 3.72 .088 .001 .000 .196 .000 .24 .20** Step 3 Skill Variety x Maladaptive Perfect Extraversion Neuroticism Agreeableness -0.03 0.01 0.17 0.03 -0.07 0.01 0.18 0.03 -1.06 0.16 2.62 0.47 .289 .687 .009 .637 .26 .02 * p < .05, **p < .001 Figure 7. Neuroticism-organizational commitment moderation by skill variety 0 1 2 3 4 5 Low Skill Variety High Skill Variety Org aniza tio na l Co mm itm ent Low Neuroticism High Neuroticism 66 Discussion The purpose of the present study was to investigate the moderation of personality-work outcomes relationships by job scope as defined by the JCM (Hackman & Oldham, 1975, 1976). Specifically, I sought to investigate whether job scope and individual job characteristics would moderate the relationships between perfectionism and the traits of the FFM with burnout, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. The hypotheses of the current study were based on the theories of interactionism (Chatman, 1989; Endler &Magnusson, 1976; Funder, 2001; Lewin, 1935, Mischel, 1968, 1977; Mischel & Shoda, 1995, 1998; Schneider, 1983; Terborg, 1981) and person-job fit (Dawis, 1992; Ehrhart, 2006; Judge & Kristof-Brown, 2004; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). The workplace is a relevant place to study these theories as most employers will have limited ability to heavily influence behaviors at work, although this ability can vary greatly. Strength of these work situations, whether strong or weak, can influence behavior (Adler & Weiss, 1988; Beaty et al., 2001; Mischel, 1977; Monson et al., 1982; Tett & Burnett, 2003; Withey et al., 2005). Due to personality differences, some employees may prefer a very structured environment and others may prefer an environment with lots of freedom. Therefore, the interaction of personalities and work environment should affect attitudes and behaviors. In the current study, the JCM was utilized to define characteristics of the work situation. Research has shown that improved performance, higher job satisfaction, and higher organizational commitment are likely the results of compatible job characteristics and employee personalities (Cooper et al., 2001; Dawis, 1992; Judge & Kristof-Brown, 2004; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Kulik et al., 1987). Therefore, the present study sought to investigate the potential effects of the 67 interactions of perfectionism and the FFM with job scope on levels of burnout, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Overall, the analyses provided evidence for job scope significantly moderating some relationships: (a) conscientiousness and burnout (Hypothesis 1), (b) agreeableness and organizational commitment (Hypothesis 3), and (c) neuroticism and organizational commitment (Hypothesis 3). Job scope did not significantly moderate any of the personality relationships with job satisfaction (Hypothesis 2). However, maladaptive perfectionism, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and job scope were significant predictors of job satisfaction. Analyses of individual job characteristics found the following signification moderations: (a) autonomy moderation of conscientiousness-burnout relationship (Hypothesis 4a), (b) feedback moderation of agreeableness-burnout relationship (Hypothesis 4b), and (c) skill variety moderation of neuroticism-organizational commitment relationship (Hypothesis 6b). None of the results revealed significant moderation by individual job characteristics for the personality-job satisfaction relationships (Hypotheses 5a ? 5e). Figure 2 illustrates the significant interaction between conscientiousness and job scope in predicting burnout. As job scope increases, low conscientiousness individuals increase in burnout whereas those high in conscientiousness decrease in burnout levels. In a job with high job scope, the employee can expect more autonomy to perform job tasks, use more skills, participate in all aspects of completing a product, receive feedback about performance, and be knowledgeable of their work's impact on others inside and outside the organization. A job of this caliber most likely requires greater employee awareness of tasks required, deadlines, and needed performance improvements. A job with high task identity requires an employee to "own" their work, meaning the employee takes responsibility for and manages all aspects of their tasks and 68 projects. An individual high in conscientiousness is typically organized, detail-oriented, disciplined, and dependable. In contrast, an individual with low conscientiousness is more spontaneous, less focused, less driven by goals, cluttered, and more likely to procrastinate (Barrick & Mount, 1993; Costa & McCrae, 1988; McCrae & Costa, 1985). What the results of the current study seem to indicate is not that a low conscientious employee does not perform as well in a high scope job and maintaining an effective performance level may be difficult or overwhelming, which could explain higher levels of burnout. Employees with high conscientiousness will be more inclined to maintain the demands of the work situation with more ease, possibly appreciating the fact that their job requires thoroughness and organization. The analyses of individual job characteristics moderation for burnout revealed two significant interactions. Autonomy moderated the relationship between conscientiousness and burnout, and feedback moderated the relationship between agreeableness and burnout. Figure 5 shows that as job autonomy increases, those high in conscientiousness decrease in their burnout levels. Low conscientious individuals remained at a similar level of burnout if job autonomy was high or low. This result suggests that conscientiousness is a factor in a highly autonomous situation for burnout levels. High conscientiousness allows for effective management of job tasks. However, when autonomy is low, highly conscientious employees are likely to report more burnout. This finding may simply be a reflection that conscientious individuals prefer a situation where thoroughness, discipline, and organization are required. This finding reinforces the result found for job scope moderation of the conscientiousness-burnout relationship. Figure 6 indicates that burnout decreases for both individuals low and high in conscientiousness. Individuals high in conscientiousness, on average, have lower rates of burnout and experience less burnout as feedback increases as opposed to individuals lower in 69 conscientiousness. Feedback, in this study, was defined as the information provided to the employee by the work itself. Highly conscientious individuals exhibit trait behaviors, such as attention to detail, thoroughness, and responsible behavior, but individuals low in conscientiousness are not highly concerned with details and may be careless (Barrick & Mount, 1993; Costa & McCrae, 1988; McCrae & Costa, 1985). Given the characteristics of conscientiousness, it logically follows that highly conscientious individuals would have less burnout when they receive more feedback about their job performance. When given information about their job performance, highly conscientious individuals have the opportunity to change aspects of their performance. Thus, they may feel better able to do their job, lessening the feelings of burnout. Employees who are low in conscientiousness have higher burnout levels regardless of level of feedback in their job. Thus, these employees may not attend to information about their job performance because details are not their priority. In the analyses for organizational commitment, moderations by job scope were significant for the neuroticism-organizational commitment and the agreeableness-organizational commitment relationships. Figure 3 illustrates that as job scope increases, organizational commitment increases for individuals low and high in neuroticism. However, those low in neuroticism, on average, have higher organizational commitment, though those high in neuroticism increase in organizational commitment at a steeper rate than those low in neuroticism. What these results seem to imply is that low neuroticism does not require higher job scope to build commitment to the organization. Yet, high neuroticism lends an employee to possibly question their own competence, supervisors' and coworkers' approval of them, and their sense of belonging in the organization (Barrick & Mount, 1993; Costa & McCrae, 1988; McCrae & Costa, 1985). Employees could interpret increased job scope as the organization 70 demonstrating confidence that they can use many skills, complete all steps of their work, and effectively perform their job with little supervision. When employees with high neuroticism begin to believe these things, they may be inclined to increase their level of commit to the organization. Additionally, job scope significantly moderated the relationship between agreeableness and organizational commitment. Figure 4 shows that as job scope increases, organizational commitment increases slightly. Individuals high in agreeableness have higher organizational commitment on average. However, the effect of the interaction is weak, and thus the difference in the rate at which organizational commitment increases for low and high agreeableness is small. When individual job characteristics were tested as moderators of the personality- organizational commitment relationships, the only significant interaction was skill variety with neuroticism. Figure 7 shows that as the skill variety required increases, organizational commitment also increases for both those low and high in neuroticism. However, those low in neuroticism have a higher level of organizational commitment on average. Additionally, those higher in neuroticism increase in organizational commitment at a higher rate. As the number of skills required by a job increase, employees high in neuroticism increase their organizational commitment, which may be due to a belief that the organization trusts the employee to successfully utilize their skills to effectively perform their job. The analyses for job satisfaction did not yield any significant results for job scope as a moderator or any individual job characteristic moderator. However, many significant main effects were found. In the analysis of job scope moderation, adaptive perfectionism, extraversion, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and job scope were all significant positive predictors except 71 neuroticism. In addition to job scope, individual job characteristics of task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback were significant predictors of job satisfaction. These significant relationships were expected as previous research has found similar results (Furnham et al., 2002; Hamachek, 1978; Judge & Bono, 2001; Judge et al., 2000, 2002, 2008; Pacht, 1984; van den Berg & Feij, 2003). Moreover, these results are consistent with previous research and the overall conclusion of the JCM that higher job scope provides a more satisfying work environment for employees (Blau, 1987; Fried & Ferris, 1987; Hackman & Oldham, 1975, 1976; Loher et al., 1985; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Wall et al., 1978). Taken together, the results of the current study demonstrate that work attitudes can be a consequence of both personality and the job environment. These findings corroborate P-J fit theory and the JCM as the interaction of personality traits and job characteristics predicted burnout and organizational commitment. One caveat to these findings is that effect sizes for the significant results were small. Even though practical significance is low in this particular study, following is a discussion of the potential implications for organizations, limitations of the study, future research directions, and conclusions. Implications Findings of the current study have possible implications for organizations in the areas of personnel selection and job design. If organizations access the job scope of job positions, they can select employees with personality characteristics to match the characteristics of the job. By maximizing P-J fit through selection, the organization could enjoy long term benefits of employees with less burnout, more commitment, and better attendance, who perform well, and ultimately, are less likely to turnover. For example, research has shown that employees can differ in their propensity to become committed to an organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991), and 72 according to P-J fit theory, compatible personality and work environment should lead to more positive work attitudes (Cooper et al., 2001; Dawis, 1992; Judge & Kristof-Brown, 2004; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Kulik et al., 1987). Based on the findings in the current study, an organization wanting to increase the probability of hiring employees likely to develop organizational commitment can use a measure of the FFM as a selection tool. Individuals low in neuroticism will likely have higher levels of organizational commitment regardless of job scope. Furthermore, the organization my anticipate highly neurotic employees would increase in organizational commitment at a higher rate if job scope is increased (see Figure 3). If several employees are burnt out and have low organizational commitment, an organization can plan for improving the situation. Organizations, through surveys and other assessments, could determine areas of the work environment contributing to negative work attitudes. Then, the organization can implement measures to alter job characteristics to be a better complement to employees? personality traits. An example would be increasing autonomy in the job for individuals high in conscientiousness to reduce burnout. If organizations determine that burnout is high and organizational commitment is low, there may be some opportunities for redesigning the job requirements. Limitations One limitation of this study is that the data was collected via self-report measures, which can produce common method bias. The consequences of common method bias can inflate or deflate the strength of relationships between independent and dependent variables. As recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003), procedures were used in the present study to attempt to mitigate the effects of common method variance: (a) the measures had varying rating scales, (b) measurement of predictors and criteria were temporally lagged, and (c) measurement scales were 73 presented in computer-generated random order to each participant. A Harman's one factor test provided evidence that multiple variables accounted for the variance seen amongst all variables. Another potential limitation is socially desirable responding, which originates from a need for social approval of one's behaviors. Therefore, some participants may give less than truthful answers (Crowne and Marlowe, 1964). In organizational research, socially desirable responding by employees may occur because of pressure to provide responses that will placate the employer. Although work variables were investigated in this study, participants volunteered to respond to studies via StudyResponse, and measurements were taken outside of any affiliation with their employer. A third limitation was the measurement of job satisfaction. First, the internal consistency for the JIG scale was ? = .78, indicating more than desirable amounts of error. Therefore, the measurement of job satisfaction included a lot of error. Second, the rating scale for the JIG is only a 3-point scale. Responses are coded as 0, 1, or 3. In the sample for the current study, a large portion of participants had the highest score possible on the JIG. Therefore, a ceiling effect occurred for job satisfaction. The ceiling effect coupled with low reliability are likely reasons to explain why significant moderation by job scope and individual job characteristics were not found. Future Directions Suggestions for future research will first address limitations of the current study. Given that the data in the current study was collected via self-report measures, future research should combine the use of self-report and objective measurements. This methodology should help reduce the possibility of common method bias. Including measurements of job characteristics from the employees and an outside observer will allow for comparisons of the two 74 measurements. Another suggestion for future research is to control for social desirability thereby providing for a more accurate estimate of the true relationships between personality, job scope, and work outcomes are more easily detected by statistical analyses. In the current study, analysis of hypotheses related to job satisfaction were limited because the measure (i.e., AJIG) has a small range of possible scores plus the distribution of scores were negatively skewed. Future research using a different measure either in place of or in combination with the AJIG would be prudent. Two potential measures for future use are the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ; Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967) and the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS; Spector, 1985). Both scales have shown evidence of adequate reliability. The MSQ contains 20 items that are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale. The JSS is a 36-item measure that uses a 6-point Likert-type rating scale. In contrast, the AJIG only has eight items with a 3-point rating scale. Therefore, the MSQ and JSS both provide a much larger range of possible scores, and hopefully a better probability of detecting significant relationships with the variables included in the current study. Another recommendation for future research is to conduct the study within an organization. In a real-life setting, outsiders or other employees not working in the position under study could make observation ratings of job scope. In a real organization, measuring social desirability levels of employees providing self-report ratings of their own jobs is essential. When employees complete surveys about their job in the workplace, they may be more likely to respond in a way they believe organizational leadership wants. Additionally, work outcomes can be expanded to objective measures in the workplace, such as performance ratings, tenure, and absenteeism. 75 If research on P-J fit or the JCM is to occur in an actual organization, the Attraction- Selection-Attrition (ASA) model should be considered. The ASA model, proposed by Schneider in 1987, posits that individuals are attracted to work environments that fit their personality, organizations select individuals for fit in competencies and personality, and attrition will occur for those who do not fit the work environment. The ASA cycle, once repeated, eventually produces a workforce in an organization that is very similar in characteristics, and employees develop the same job attitudes. Therefore, this similarity needs to be considered when conducting research in a real world scenario, although research could be expanded to multiple organizations. Although the ASA model may apply to many individuals seeking employment, other individuals may be in a situation where they need to take any job offered to them. In this case, the ASA model predicts they will at some point leave the organization. However, this is not true for everyone. Research in an organization should consider the employees? preferences for characteristics of a job. This information may provide more insight into the relationships between personality, job characteristics, and work outcomes. Conclusions In conclusion, the present study provides additional evidence for the interaction of person and situation to influence behavior. Specifically, the interactions of job scope and conscientiousness, autonomy and conscientiousness, agreeableness and feedback are important for burnout levels of employees. Additionally, influential interactions for organizational commitment were neuroticism and job scope, agreeableness and job scope, and neuroticism and skill variety. These findings suggest particular personality characteristics and work contexts interact, producing low or high levels P-J fit for employees. High levels of P-J fit benefit an organization through effective performance and more positive work attitudes (Cooper et al., 76 2001; Dawis, 1992; Judge & Kristof-Brown, 2004; Kulik et al., 1987; Meyer & Allen, 1991; Warr & Inceoglu, 2012). Low levels of P-J fit negatively impact organizations with diminished employee well-being, lower productivity, higher absenteeism rates, and increased turnover de Hoogh & den Hartog, 2009; Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004; Spence Laschinger & Finegan, 2008; Leiter & Maslach, 2004). Consequently, the results of the current study have implications for organizations in the areas of personnel selection and job design. If organizations invest more resources in selecting individuals who are likely to be a good fit for the organization, they should see a return on their investment. 77 References Adler, S., & Weiss, H. M. (1988). Recent developments in the study of personality and organizational behavior. In C. Cooper & I. Robertson (Ed.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 307-330). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Alarcon, G. M. (2011). A meta-analysis of burnout with job demands, resources, and attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(2), 549?562. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.03.007 Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18. Allport G.W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt. Allport, G. W. (1966). Traits revisited. American Psychologist, 21, 1?10. Atchison, T. J., & Lefferts, E. A. (1972). The prediction of turnover using Herzberg's job satisfaction technique. Personnel Psychology, 25(1), 53-64. Bakker, A.B. & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources Model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309-328. 78 Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., de Boer, E., & Schaufeli, W. (2003). Job demands and job resources as predictors of absence duration and frequency. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 341-356. Bakker, A. B., van der Zee, K. I., Lewig, K. A., & Dollard, M. F. (2006). The relationship between the Big Five personality factors and burnout: A study among volunteer counselors. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146(1), 31?50. doi:10.3200/SOCP.146.1 Balzer, W. K., Kihm, J. A., Smith, P. C., Irwin, J. L., Bachiochi, P. D., Robie, C.,? Parra, L. F. (2000). Users? manual for the Job Descriptive Index (JDI; 1997 version) and the Job in General scales. In J. M. Stanton and C. D. Crossley (Eds.), Electronic resources for the JDI and JIG. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 111?118. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.78.1.111 Barrick, M.R., Mount, M. K., & Li, N. (2013). The theory of purposeful work behavior: The role of personality, higher-order goals, and job characteristics. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 132-153. Beaty, J. C., Cleveland, J. N., & Murphy, K. R. (2001). The relation between personality and contextual performance in ?strong? versus ?weak? situations. Human Performance, 14(2), 125?148. doi:10.1207/S15327043HUP1402_01 79 Beckstead, J. W. (2002). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Maslach Burnout Inventory among Florida nurses. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 39, 785-792. Bem, D. J., & Allen, A. (1974). On predicting some of the people some of the time: The search for cross-situational consistencies in behavior. Psychological Review, 81(6), 506?520. Bergman, A. J., Nyland, J. E., & Burns, L. R. (2007). Correlates with perfectionism and the utility of a dual process model. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(2), 389?399. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.12.007 Best, R. G., Stapleton, L. M., & Downey, R. G. (2005). Core self-evaluations and job burnout: The test of alternative models. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(4), 441? 451. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.10.4.441 Bipp, T. (2010). What do people want from their jobs? The Big Five, core self-evaluations and work motivation. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18(1), 28?39. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2010.00486.x Blankstein, K. R., Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & Eng, A. (1993). Dimensions of perfectionism and irrational fears: An examination with the fear survey schedule. Personality and Individual Differences, 15(3), 323-328. Blau, G. J. (1987). Using a person-environment fit model to predict job involvement and organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30, 240-257. Borgatta, E. F. (1964). The structure of personality characteristics. Behavioral Science, 9(1), 8- 17. Bowers, K. S. (1973). Situationism in psychology: An analysis and a critique. Psychological Review, 80, 307?336. 80 Bowling, N. A., Eschleman, K. J., & Wang, Q. (2010). A meta-analytic examination of the relationship between job satisfaction and subjective well-being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(4), 915-934. Brief, A. P., & Aldag, R. J. (1975). Employee reactions to job characteristics: A constructive replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 182?186. doi:10.1037/h0076548 Burns, D. D. (1983). The spouse who is a perfectionist. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 17, 219-230. Burns, L., & Fedewa, B. (2005). Cognitive styles: Links with perfectionistic thinking. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(1), 103?113. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.03.012 Cattell, R. B. (1948). Primary personality factors in the realm of objective tests. Journal of Personality, 16, 459-487. Cervone, D., & Shoda, Y. (1999). Social cognitive theories and the coherence of personality. In D. Cervone & Y. Shoda (Eds.), The coherence of personality: Social-cognitive bases of consistency, variability, and organization (pp. 155?181). New York: Guilford. Chan, D. W. (2010). Perfectionism among Chinese gifted and nongifted students in Hong Kong: The use of the revised Almost Perfect Scale. Educational Psychology, 34(1), 68?98. Chang, E. C. (2006). Conceptualization and measurement of adaptive and maladaptive aspects of performance perfectionism: Relations to personality, psychological functioning, and academic achievement. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 30, 677-697. Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person- organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 333-349. doi:10.2307/258171 Cohen J. E. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 81 Cohrs, J. C., Abele, A. E., & Dette, D. E. (2006). Integrating situational and dispositional determinants of job satisfaction: Findings from three samples of professionals. Journal of Psychology, 140, 363-395. Colarelli, S. M., Dean, R. A., & Konstans, C. (1987). Comparative effects of personal and situational influences on job outcomes of new professionals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(4), 558-566. Cooper, C. L., Dewe, P., & O'Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Organizational stress: A review and critique of theory, research, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(6), 653-665. Crowne, D., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence. New York: Wiley. Dawis, R. V. (1992). Person-environment fit and job satisfaction. In C. J. Cranny, P. Cain Smith, & E. F. Stone (Eds.), Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their performance (pp. 69-88). New York: Lexington Books. de Hoogh, A. H. B., & den Hartog, D. N. (2009). Neuroticism and locus of control as moderators of the relationships of charismatic and autocratic leadership with burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 1058?67. doi:10.1037/a0016253 de Jong, R. D., van der Velde, M. E. G., & Jansen, P. G. W. (2001). Openness to experience and growth need strength as moderators between job characteristics and satisfaction. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(4), 350?356. doi:10.1111/1468- 2389.00186 82 de Vries, J., & van Heck, G. (2002). Fatigue: Relationships with basic personality and temperament dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 33(8), 1311?1324. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00015-6 Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F. & Schaufeli, W. (2001). The Job Demands- Resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499-512. Dunham, R. B. (1976). The measurement and dimensionality of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(4), 404?409. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.61.4.404 Ehrhart, K. H. (2006). Job characteristic beliefs and personality as antecedents of subjective person-job fit. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21(2), 193-226. doi: 10.1007/s10869- 006-9025-6 Endler, N. S., & Magnusson, D. (1976). Toward an interactional psychology of personality. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 956?974. Erdheim, J., Wang, M., & Zickar, M. J. (2006). Linking the Big Five personality constructs to organizational commitment. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 959-970. Evans, M. G., Kiggundu, M. N., & House, R. J. (1979). A partial test and extension of the Job Characteristics Model of motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 24(3), 354-381. Farh, J. L., & Scott, W. E. (1983). The experimental effects of "autonomy" on performance and self-reports of satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31, 203-222. Farr, J. L. (1976). Task characteristics, reward contingency, and intrinsic motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 294-307. Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44(3), 329-344. 83 Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2002). Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment. Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association. Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & Dyck, D. G. (1989). Self-oriented perfectionism, neuroticism, and anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 10(7), 731-735. Fok, L. Y., Hartman, S. J., Patti, A. L., & Razek, J. R. (1999). The relationships between equity sensitivity, growth need strength, organizational citizenship behavior, and perceived outcomes in the quality environment: A study of accounting professionals. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15(1), 99-120. Freudenberger, H. J. (1975). The staff burnout syndrome in alternative institutions. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12, 72-83. Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the Job Characteristics Model: A review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40(2), 287?322. doi:10.1111/j.1744- 6570.1987.tb00605.x Funder, D. C. (2001). Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 197?221. Funder, D. C. (2008). Persons, situations, and person-situation interactions. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed.) (pp. 568-580). New York: The Guilford Press. Furnham, A., Petrides, K., Jackson, C., & Cotter, T. (2002). Do personality factors predict job satisfaction? Personality and Individual Differences, 33(8), 1325?1342. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00016-8 Ganske, K. H., & Ashby, J. S. (2007). Perfectionism and career decision-making self-efficacy. Journal of Employment Counseling, 44(1), 17-28. 84 Gellatly, I. R., & Irving, P. G. (2001). Personality, autonomy, and contextual performance of managers. Human Performance, 14(3), 231?245. doi:10.1207/S15327043HUP1403_2 Giffords, E. D. (2009). An examination of organizational commitment and professional commitment and the relationship to work environment, demographic, and organizational factors. Journal of Social Work, 9(4), 386-404. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality": The Big-Five Factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216-1229. Goldberg, L. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several Five-Factor models. Personality Psychology in Europe, 7, 7- 28. Goldberg, L., Johnson, J., Eber, H., Hogan, R., Ashton, M., Cloninger, C., & Gough, H. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 84?96. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007 Gould, S. (1979). Age, job complexity, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 209-223. Graen, G. B., Scandura, T. A., & Graen, M. R. (1986). A field experimental test of the moderating effects of growth need strength on productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 484-491. Gregson, T. (1990). Measuring job satisfaction with a multiple-choice format of the Job Descriptive Index. Psychological Reports, 66, 787?793. 85 Griffin, M. L., Hogan, N. L., Lambert, E. G., Tucker-Gail, K. A., & Baker, D. N. (2010). Job involvement, job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment and the burnout of correctional staff. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 239-255. Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E., III. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 55(3), 259-286. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159?170. doi:10.1037/h0076546 Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279. Hakel, M. (1974). Normative personality factors recovered from ratings of personality descriptors: The beholder's eye. Personnel Psychology, 27(3), 409-421. Halbesleben, J. R., & Buckley, M. R. (2004). Burnout in organizational life. Journal of Management, 30(6), 859-879. Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism. Psychology, 15, 27-33. Hamidi, Y., & Eivazi, Z. (2010). The relationships among employees' job stress, job satisfaction, and the organizational performance of Hamadan urban health centers. Social Behavior and Personality, 38(7), 963-968. Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(3), 456?70. Hochw?lder, J. (2009). Burnout among Torgersen?s eight personality types. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 37(4), 467?479. doi:10.2224/sbp.2009.37.4.467 86 Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (1995). Employee turnover. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western. Houkes, I., Winants, Y. H. W. M., & Twellaar, M. (2008). Specific determinants of burnout among male and female general practitioners: A cross-lagged panel analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81(2), 249?276. doi:10.1348/096317907X218197 House, R. J., Shane, S. A., & Herold, D. M. (1996). Rumors of the death of dispositional research are vastly exaggerated. Academy of Management Review, 21, 203-224. Huang, T., & Hsiao, W. (2007). The causal relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Behavior and Personality, 35(9), 1265-1276. Hulin, C. L., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Job attitudes. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 255-276). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Idaszak, J. R., & Drasgow, F. (1987). A revision of the Job Diagnostic Survey: Elimination of a measurement artifact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(1), 69?74. doi:10.1037//0021- 9010.72.1.69 International Personality Item Pool: A Scientific Collaboratory for the Development of Advanced Measures of Personality Traits and Other Individual Differences (http://ipip.ori.org/). Internet Web Site. Ironson, G. H., Smith, P. C., Brannick, M. T., Gibson, W. M. & Paul, K. B. (1989). Construction of a job in general scale: A comparison of global, composite and specific measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 1-8. James, L. R., & Mazerolle, M. D. (2002). Personality in work organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 87 Judge, T.A., & Bono, J.E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits ? self-esteem, generalised self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability? with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80?92. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 237?249. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.85.2.237 Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Klinger, R. (2008). The dispositional sources of job satisfaction: A comparative test. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57(3), 361?372. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00318.x Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 530?541. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.3.530 Judge, T. A., & Kristof-Brown, A. L. (2004). Personality, interactional psychology, and person- organization fit. In B. Schneider & D. B. Smith (Eds.), Personality and Organizations (pp. 87-109). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376-407. Jung, K. G., Dalessio, A., & Johnson, S. M. (1986). Stability of the factor structure of the Job Descriptive Index. Academy of Management Journal, 29(3), 609?616. doi:10.2307/256227 Keeney, M. J., Snell, A. F., Robison, S. J., Svyantek, D. V., & Bott, J. (2004). Personality and situational pattern differences across three work groups: A comparative examination of 88 worker personality and organizational climate using three pattern-extraction analyses. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 12(2), 183?203. doi:10.1108/eb028992 Kemp, N. J., & Cook, J. D. (1983). Job longevity and growth need strength as joint moderators of the task design-job satisfaction relationship. Human Relations, 36(10), 883-898. Kinicki, A. J., McKee-Ryan, F. M., Schriesheim, C. A., & Carson, K. P. (2002). Assessing the construct validity of the Job Descriptive Index: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 14?32. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.1.14 Kokkinos, C. M. (2007). Job stressors, personality and burnout in primary school teachers. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 229?243. doi:10.1348/000709905X90344 Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person?organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1?49. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals' fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281-342. Kulik, C. T., Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. R. (1987). Work design as an approach to person- environment fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 278-296. Kulik, C. T., Oldham, G. R., & Langner, P. H. (1988). Measurement of job characteristics: Comparison of the original and the revised Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3), 462?466. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.73.3.462 Kuo, T. H., & Ho, L. A. (2010). Individual difference and job performance: The relationships among personal factors, job characteristics, flow experience, and service quality. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 38(4), 531?552. doi:10.2224/sbp.2010.38.4.531 89 Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1990). On the meaning of Maslach's three dimensions of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 743-747. Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(2), 123-133. Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (2004). Areas of worklife: A structured approach to organizational predictors of job burnout. In P. Perrewe & D. C. Ganster, (Eds.), Research in occupational stress and well being: (Vol. 3) Emotional and physiological processes and positive intervention strategies (pp. 91-134). Oxford, UK: JAI Press/Elsevier. Lewin, K. (1935). Principles of psychology (Vol. 1). Bloomington, IL: Principia. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago: Rand McNally. Loher, B. T., Noe, R. A., Moeller, N. L., & Fitzgerald, M. P. (1985). A meta-analysis of the relation of job characteristics to job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(2), 280?289. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.70.2.280 Magnusson, D. (1990). Personality development from an interactional perspective. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 193-222). New York: Guilford Press. Martinussen, M., Richardsen, A., & Burke, R. (2007). Job demands, job resources, and burnout among police officers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(3), 239?249. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.03.001 Maslach, C. (1976). Burned-out. Human Behavior, 5, 16-22. Maslach, C. (1982). Burnout: The cost of caring. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 90 Maslach, C. (2003). Job burnout: New directions in research and intervention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(5), 189-192. Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experience burnout. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 2, 99-113. Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. (1984). Burnout in organizational settings. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Applied Social Psychology Annual (Vol. 5, pp. 133-153). Beverly Hills CA: Sage. Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1986). The Maslach Burnout Inventory. (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397-422. Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194. McCrae, R. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), 323-337. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1985). Comparison of EPI and psychotism scales with measures of the Five-Factor Model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 6(5), 587-597. McDougall, W. (1932). Of the words character and personality. Quarterly for Psychodiagnostic & Allied Studies, 1, 3-16. 91 McIntyre, S. E., & McIntyre, T. M. (2010). Measuring job satisfaction in Portuguese health professionals: Correlates and validation of the Job Descriptive Index and the Job in General Scale. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18(4), 425-431. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61-89. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299-326. Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 6(1), 20-52. Mills, L. B., & Huebner, E. S. (1998). A prospective study of personality characteristics, occupational stressors, and burnout among school psychology practitioners. Journal of School Psychology, 36(1), 103-120. Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of persona and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333-352). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mischel, W. (1990). Personality dispositions revisited and revised: A view after three decades. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research. New York: Guilford Press. 92 Mischel, W. (2004). Toward an integrative science of the person. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 1?22. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.042902.130709 Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102(2), 246?268. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7740090 Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1998). Reconciling processing dynamics and personality dispositions. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 229?258. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.229 Mitchelson, J., & Burns, L. (1998). Career mothers and perfectionism: Stress at work and at home. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(3), 477?485. doi:10.1016/S0191- 8869(98)00069-5 Monson, T. C., Hesley, J. W., & Chernick, L. (1982). Specifying when personality traits can and cannot predict behavior: An alternative to abandoning the attempt to predict single-act criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(2), 385?399. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.43.2.385 Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247. Murray, H. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press. Murtha, T. C., Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1996). Toward an interactionist taxonomy of personality and situations: An integrative situational-dispositional representation of personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 193?207. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.71.1.193 93 Norman, W. T. (1963). Personality measurement, faking, and detection: An assessment method for use in personnel selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47(4), 225-241. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Oh, I-S., Wang, G., & Mount, M. K. (2011). Validity of observer ratings of the Five-Factor Model of personality traits: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 762- 773. Oldham, G. R. (1976). Job characteristics and internal motivation: The moderating effect of interpersonal and individual variables. Human Relations, 29(6), 559-569. Oldham, G. R., Hackman, J. R., & Pearce, J. L. (1976). Conditions under which employees respond positively to enriched work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 395-403. O'Reilly, C. A., & Caldwell, D. F. (1979). Informational influence as a determinant of perceived task characteristics and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 157-165. O'Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1986). Organization commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499. Orvis, K. A., & Leffler, G. P. (2011). Individual and contextual factors: An interactionist approach to understanding employee self-development. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(2), 172?177. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.038 Pacht, A. R. (1984). Reflections on perfection. American Psychologist, 39(4), 386-390. Page, J., Bruch, M., & Haase, R. (2008). Role of perfectionism and Five-Factor model traits in career indecision. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(8), 811?815. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.08.013 94 Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 835-852. Pervin, L. A. (1989). Persons, situations, interactions: The history of a controversy and a discussion of theoretical models. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 350-360. doi:10.2307/258172 Pines, A., Aronson, E., & Kafry, D. (1981). Burnout: From tedium to personal growth. New York: Free Press. Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879?903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531-544. Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(5), 603?609. doi:10.1037/h0037335 Preacher, K. J. (2003). A primer on interaction effects in multiple linear regression. Retrieved from http://www.quantpsy.org/interact/interactions.htm Rice, K. G., & Ashby, J. S. (2007). An efficient method for classifying perfectionists. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 72-85. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.54.1.72 Roberts, K. H., & Glick, W. (1981). The job characteristics approach to task design: A critical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 193-217. Saavedra. R., & Kwun, S. K. (2000). Affective states in job characteristic theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 21, 131?146. 95 Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1977). An examination of need-satisfaction models of job attitudes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(3), 427-456. Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224-253. Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., Hoogduin, K., Schaap, C., & Kladler, A. (2001). On the clinical validity of the Maslach Burnout Inventory and the Burnout Measure. Psychology and Health, 16, 565?582. Schneider, B. (1983). Interactional psychology and organizational behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 1-31). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), 437-453. Schneider, R. J., Hough, L. M., & Dunnette, M. D. (1996). Broadsided by broad traits: How to sink science in five dimensions or less. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 639-655. Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. (2009). Interactive effects of growth need strength, work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 489?505. Shoda, Y., & LeeTiernan, S. J. (2002). What remains invariant? Finding order within a person?s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors across situations. In D. Cervone & W. Mischel (Eds.), Advances in personality science (pp. 241-270). New York: Guilford Press. Shoda, Y., & Mischel, W. (1998). Personality as a stable cognitive-affective activation network: Characteristic patterns of behavior variation emerge from a stable personality structure. In S. J. Read & L. C. Miller (Eds.), Connectionist models of social reasoning and social behavior (pp. 175-208). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 96 Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Wright, J. C. (1994). Intra-individual stability in the organization and patterning of behavior: Incorporating psychological situations into the ideographic analysis of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 674-687. Sims H. P. Jr., Szilagyi A. D., & Keller, R. T. (1976). The measurement of job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 19, 195-212. Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Knopf. Slaney, R. B., & Ashby, J. S. (1996). Perfectionists: Study of a criterion group. Journal of Counseling and Development, 74, 393-398. Slaney, R. B., & Johnson, D. G. (1992). The Almost Perfect Scale. Unpublished manuscript, Pennsylvania State University. Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., Ashby, J. S. (2002). A programmatic approach to measuring perfectionism: The Almost Perfect Scales. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 63-88). Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association. Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., Mobley, M., Trippi, J., & Ashby, J. S. (2001). The revised Almost Perfect Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 130- 145. Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally. Smith, P. C., Smith, O. W., & Rollo, J. (1974). Factor structure for blacks and whites of the Job Descriptive Index and its discrimination of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(1), 99-100. 97 Solinger, O. N., van Olffen, W., & Roe, R. A. (2008). Beyond the three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 70-83. Spagnoli, P., & Caetano, A. (2012). Personality and organisational commitment: The mediating role of job satisfaction during socialisation. Career Development International, 17(3), 255-275. Spector, P.E. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Development of the Job Satisfaction Survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 693-713. Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1991). Relations of job characteristics from multiple data sources with employee affect, absence, turnover intentions, and health. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(1), 46-53. Spence Laschinger, H. K., & Finegan, J. (2008). Situational and dispositional predictors of nurse manager burnout: A time-lagged analysis. Journal of Nursing Management, 16(5), 601? 607. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2834.2008.00904.x Stagner, R. (1977). On the reality and relevance of traits. Journal of General Psychology, 96, 185-207. Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. (1985). Stability in the midst of change: A dispositional approach to job attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 469-485. Steers, R. M. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 46-56. Steers, R. M., & Spencer, D. G. (1977). The role of achievement motivation in job design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(4), 472?479. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.62.4.472 98 Stoeber, J., & Rennert, D. (2008). Perfectionism in school teachers: Relations with stress appraisals, coping styles, and burnout. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 21(1), 37?53. doi:10.1080/10615800701742461 Stoeber, J., & Stoeber, F. (2009). Domains of perfectionism: Prevalence and relationships with perfectionism, gender, age, and satisfaction with life. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(4), 530?535. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.12.006 Sutin, A. R., & Costa, P. T. (2010). Reciprocal influences of personality and job characteristics across middle adulthood. Journal of Personality, 78(1), 257?288. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 6494.2009.00615.x Terborg, J. R. (1981). Interactional psychology and research on human behavior in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 6(4), 569-576. doi:10.2307/257635 Terry-Short, L. A., Owens, R. G., Slade, P. D., & Dewey, M. E. (1995). Positive and negative perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 18(5), 663-668. Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 500?517. doi:10.1037/0021- 9010.88.3.500 Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross- situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 397?423. Thomas, A., Buboltz, W. C., & Winkelspecht, C. S. (2004). Job characteristics and personality as predictors of job satisfaction. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 12(2), 205?219. doi:10.1108/eb028993 99 Thorndike, E. L. (1906). The principles of teaching based on psychology. New York: A. G. Seiler. Tung-Chun, H., & Wan-Jung, H. (2007). The causal relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Behavior and Personality, 35(9), 1265-1276. Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (Technical Report No. ASD-TR-61-97). Lackland Air Force Base, TX: U. S. Air Force. Tziner, A., Waismal-Manor, R., Vardi, N., & Brodman, A. (2008). The personality dispositional approach to job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Psychological Reports, 103, 435-442. van den Berg, P. T., & Feij, J. A. (2003). Complex relationships among personality traits, job characteristics, and work behaviors. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11(4), 326?339. doi:10.1111/j.0965-075X.2003.00255.x van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., de Witte, H., & Lens, W. (2008). Explaining the relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction. Work & Stress, 22(3), 277?294. doi:10.1080/02678370802393672 Wall, T. D., Clegg, C. W., & Jackson, P. R. (1978). An evaluation of the Job Characteristics Model. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 51, 183-196. Walsh, J. T., Taber, T. D., & Beehr, T. A. (1980). An integrated model of perceived job characteristics. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 252-267. Wang, K., Slaney, R., & Rice, K. (2007). Perfectionism in Chinese university students from Taiwan: A study of psychological well-being and achievement motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1279-1290. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.10.006 100 Warr, P. (1999). Logical and judgmental moderators of the criterion-related validity of personality scales. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(2), 187- 204. Warr, P., & Inceoglu, I. (2012). Job engagement, job satisfaction, and contrasting associations with person-job fit. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(2), 129?138. doi:10.1037/a0026859 Weisberg, J., & Sagie, A. (1999). Teachers' physical, mental, and emotional burnout: Impact on intention to quit. The Journal of Psychology, 133(3), 333?339. Weiss, D. I., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Work Adjustment Project, Industrial Relations Center, University of Minnesota, Minnesota. Weiss, H. M., & Adler, S. (1984). Personality and organizational behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 1-50). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Academy of Management Review, 7, 418-428. Withey, M. J., Gellatly, I. R., & Annett, M. (2005). The moderating effect of situation strength on the relationship between personality and provision of effort. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(8), 1587?1606. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02186.x Wyatt, R. & Gilbert, P. (1998). Dimensions of perfectionism: A study exploring their relationship with perceived social rank and status. Personality and Individual Differences, 24(1), 71-79. 101 Yeager, S. J. (1981). Dimensionality of the Job Descriptive Index. Academy of Management Journal, 24(1), 205-212. Zellars, K. L., Perrewe, P. L., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2000). Burnout in health care: The role of the five factors of personality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(8), 1570?1598. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02456.x Zhang, Y., Gan, Y., & Cham, H. (2007). Perfectionism, academic burnout and engagement among Chinese college students: A structural equation modeling analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(6), 1529?1540. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.010 102 Appendix A Demographic Questionnaire What is your age? What is your gender? O Male O Female What is your racial or ethnic background? O Black/African American O White/European American O Asian American O Hispanic O Arab/Middle Eastern O Native American O Pacific Islander O Multiracial O Other What is your approximate family income before taxes? Do you work more than 20 hours per week in paid employment? O Yes O No 103 How many hours do you work per week? What is your marital status? O Single O Single in an Exclusive Dating Relationship O Engaged O Living Together O Married O Separated O Divorced O Widowed What is your current living situation? O I live alone O I live with friend(s)/roommate(s) O I live with relatives O I live in the same house as my parent(s) O I live with my significant other O I live with my spouse Are you a parent? O Yes O No How many children do you have living with you? What is the age of the youngest child living with you? 104 What is the highest education you have received? O Grade School O Some High School O High School Diploma/G.E.D. O Specialization from a Trade School O 2-year College Degree O Some College O 4-year College Degree O Some Graduate School O Master's Degree O Doctorate or Professional Degree O Other How many years have you worked at your current company/organization? How many years have you worked at your current position within your company/organization? Do you currently serve in a supervisory role? O Yes O No 105 Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman & Oldham, 1975) Following are a number of statements or questions about your job. The questions are designed to obtain your perceptions of your job and your reactions to it. Please read each statement or question carefully. Click on the number that best represents how you perceive your job. Following are a number of statements or questions about your job. The questions are designed to obtain your perceptions of your job and your reactions to it. Please read each statement or question carefully. Click on the answer choice that best represents how you perceive your job. To what extent does the job require you to do many different things at work, using a variety of your skills and talents? Very Little Moderate Very Much O O O O O O O To what extent does the job require you to do many different things at work, using a variety of your skills and talents? Very Little Moderate Very Much O O O O O O O To what extent does your job involve doing a ?whole? piece of work? That is, is the job a complete piece of work that has a beginning and end? Very Little Moderate Very Much O O O O O O O How much are the results of your work likely to affect the lives of well-being of other people? Very Little Moderate Very Much O O O O O O O 106 To what extent does your job permit you to decide on your own how to go about doing the work? Very Little Moderate Very Much O O O O O O O The job requires me to use a number of complex or high level skills. Very Inaccurate Mostly Inaccurate Slightly Inaccurate Uncertain Slightly Accurate Mostly Accurate Very Inaccurate O O O O O O O The job is quite simple and repetitive. Very Inaccurate Mostly Inaccurate Slightly Inaccurate Uncertain Slightly Accurate Mostly Accurate Very Inaccurate O O O O O O O The job is arranged so that I can do an entire piece of work from beginning to end. Very Inaccurate Mostly Inaccurate Slightly Inaccurate Uncertain Slightly Accurate Mostly Accurate Very Inaccurate O O O O O O O The job provides me the chance to completely finish the pieces of the work I begin. Very Inaccurate Mostly Inaccurate Slightly Inaccurate Uncertain Slightly Accurate Mostly Accurate Very Inaccurate O O O O O O O The job is one where a lot of other people can be affected by how well the work gets done. Very Inaccurate Mostly Inaccurate Slightly Inaccurate Uncertain Slightly Accurate Mostly Accurate Very Inaccurate O O O O O O O The job itself is very significant in the broader scheme of things. Very Inaccurate Mostly Inaccurate Slightly Inaccurate Uncertain Slightly Accurate Mostly Accurate Very Inaccurate O O O O O O O 107 The job gives me a chance to use my personal initiative or judgment in carrying out the work. Very Inaccurate Mostly Inaccurate Slightly Inaccurate Uncertain Slightly Accurate Mostly Accurate Very Inaccurate O O O O O O O The job gives me a lot of opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do the work. Very Inaccurate Mostly Inaccurate Slightly Inaccurate Uncertain Slightly Accurate Mostly Accurate Very Inaccurate O O O O O O O The actual work itself provides clues about how well I am doing ? aside from any feedback coworkers or supervisors may provide. Very Inaccurate Mostly Inaccurate Slightly Inaccurate Uncertain Slightly Accurate Mostly Accurate Very Inaccurate O O O O O O O Just doing the work required by the job provides many chances for me to figure out how well I am doing. Very Inaccurate Mostly Inaccurate Slightly Inaccurate Uncertain Slightly Accurate Mostly Accurate Very Inaccurate O O O O O O O 108 International Personality Inventory Pool Measure of the Five Factor Model (Goldberg, 1990; Goldberg et al., 2006) Following are phrases describing people?s behavior. Please use the rating scale below to describe how accurately each statement describes you. Describe yourself as you generally are now, not as you wish to be in the future. Describe yourself as you honestly see yourself, in relation to other people you know of the same sex as you are, and roughly your same age. Please read each statement carefully and click the response option that most accurately describes you. Very Inaccurate Moderately Inaccurate Neither Inaccurate nor Accurate Moderately Accurate Very Accurate Have a sharp tongue. O O O O O Am always prepared. O O O O O Have a vivid imagination. O O O O O Pay attention to details. O O O O O Do not like art. O O O O O Don't like to draw attention to myself. O O O O O Am not easily bothered by things. O O O O O Feel comfortable around people. O O O O O Get chores done right away. O O O O O Make people feel at ease. O O O O O Don?t see things through. O O O O O Enjoy hearing new ideas. O O O O O Avoid philosophical discussions. O O O O O Have little to say. O O O O O Would describe my experiences as somewhat dull. O O O O O Make plans and stick to them. O O O O O Believe that others have good intentions. O O O O O Have frequent mood swings. O O O O O Don't talk a lot. O O O O O Am the life of the party. O O O O O 109 Very Inaccurate Moderately Inaccurate Neither Inaccurate nor Accurate Moderately Accurate Very Accurate Have a good word for everyone. O O O O O Suspect hidden motives in others. O O O O O Tend to vote for liberal political candidates. O O O O O Find it difficult to get down to work. O O O O O Am not interested in abstract ideas O O O O O Insult people. O O O O O Panic easily. O O O O O Dislike myself. O O O O O Do not enjoy going to art museums. O O O O O Am often down in the dumps. O O O O O Get back at others. O O O O O Respect others. O O O O O Shirk my duties. O O O O O Am very pleased with myself. O O O O O Cut others to pieces. O O O O O Am skilled in handling social situations. O O O O O Waste my time. O O O O O Seldom feel blue. O O O O O Make friends easily. O O O O O Know how to captivate people. O O O O O Accept people as they are. O O O O O Carry the conversation to a higher level. O O O O O Believe in the importance of art. O O O O O Carry out my plans. O O O O O Keep in the background. O O O O O Rarely get irritated. O O O O O Feel comfortable with myself. O O O O O Tend to vote for conservative political candidates. O O O O O Do just enough work to get by. O O O O O Often feel blue. O O O O O 110 Organizational Commitment Survey (Mowday et al., 1979) This survey asks your opinion about various aspects of your job. Read each statement carefully. Using the scale provided below, indicate the extent to which you agree with each statement by clicking the response that corresponds to your answer. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond what is normally expected in order to help this company continue to succeed. O O O O O I talk up the company as a great organization to my friends. O O O O O I would accept almost any type of job in order to keep working with this company. O O O O O I find my values and the values of the company are very similar. O O O O O I am proud to tell others that I work here. O O O O O My choice to work for this company inspires the best in me in the way of job performance. O O O O O I am glad that I chose to work at this company over other organizations I was considering at the time. O O O O O I care about the fate of the company. O O O O O The company is the best of all organizations for me to be employed. O O O O O