A STUDY ON PERSONALITY TRAITS AMONG THE EMPLOYEES

INTRODUCTION

1.1 ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR

Organizational Behaviour is the study of what people think, feel and do it and around
organizations. The scholars systematically study individual, team and structural
characteristics that influence behaviour within organizations. Organizational Behaviour is a
field of study where the scholars have been accumulating a distinct knowledge about
behaviour within organizations.
Organizational Behaviour emerged as a distinct field around the 1940’s. However its origin
can be traced much further back in time. Many of us specialize in Accounting, Marketing,
Information Systems and other fields with corresponding job titles, so it’s understandable
that students focus on these career paths. Everyone in the workforce needs to understand
predict and influence behaviour both our own and that of others in the organizational
settings. Ethical, cross cultural and other values are relatively stable characteristics so they
are an important influence on individual behaviour. Another individual characteristic that
has long term stability is Personality. In fact, there is considerable evidence that values and
personality traits are interrelated and reinforce each other.
The origin of personality is a battle among psychologists. Some scholars staunchly believe
that personality is based purely on genetic code. They point to evidence that personality
traits are connected to specific parts of the brain and chemical activities in the body.
Evolutionary psychologists have taken this perspective a step further by explaining how
personality has been shaped by generations of social evolutions. Other psychologist,
without denying some effects of genetics, argues that the environment in which we live
influences our personality. A personality, atleast in part, develop through early childhood
socialization. To a small degree, personality can also evolve through socialization and life
experience later in life.
1.1.2 PERSONALITY TRAITS IDENTIFICATION
Personality refers to the relatively stable pattern of behaviours and consistent internal states
that explain a person’s behavioural tendencies. Personality has both internal and external
elements. Personality has to do with individual differences among people in behaviour
patterns, cognition and emotion. Different personality theorists present their own
definitions of the word based on their theoretical positions. Ethical, cross- cultural and

1
other values are relatively stable characteristics, so they are an important influence on
individual behaviour. Another individual characteristic that has long-term stable is
personality. In fact, there are considerable evidences that values and personality traits are
interrelated and reinforce each other. External traits are the observable behaviours that we
rely on to identify someone’s personality.
Trait, A trait is an element of personality that is relatively stable throughout the lifespan
and across contexts. In other words, a trait is a consistent element of self that makes that
person who he is. Traits are the general tendencies you'd list if you were asked to describe
your child or your best friend. Traits affect our thoughts, emotions and behaviours.
Psychologists who support the trait theory of personality believe that there are five basic
traits (called the "Big Five"): extraversion, openness to experience, conscientiousness,
neuroticism and agreeableness.
The Five-Factor Theory of Personality
Both Cattell’s and Eysenck’s theory have been the subject of considerable research, which
has led some theorists to believe that Cattell focused on too many traits, while Eysenck's
focused on too few. As a result, a new trait theory often referred to as the "Big Five" theory
emerged. This five-factor model of personality represents five core traits that interact to
form human personality. While researchers often disagree about the exact labels for each
dimension, the following are described most commonly
 Extraversion
 Agreeableness
 Conscientiousness
 Neuroticism
 Openness
CHAPTER II

2.1 NEED FOR THE PROJECT

A study on personality traits among employees helps in identifying the suitable candidates
for appropriately placing employees in their work profiles.

2.2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2
LITERATURE REVIEW on Personality: Big five dimensions, related research Within the
last two decades, there has been consensus within the organization behaviour researchers
that five factor model of personality, often termed the “big five” personality frame work
(Goldberg, 1981, 1990; Costa and McCrae, 1992; John and Srivastava, 1999), is one of the
most prominent models in contemporary psychology to describe the most salient features
of personality. This title “big five” is selected not to reflect their intrinsic greatness but to
emphasize that each of the factor is extremely broad. As John and Srivastava (1999),
pointed out that each of “these five dimensions represent personality at the broadest level
of abstraction, and each dimension summarizes a large number of distinct more specific
personality characteristics. The big five traits can be found in almost any measure of
personality (McCrae and John, 1992), including the analysis of trait adjectives in many
languages and these data strongly suggest that personality trait structure is universal
(McCrae and Costa, 1997). Research evidence also indicated that the big five traits are
highly stable over time (Gosling et al., 2003) and appear to be shaped by biological
(genetic) factors (Digman, 1989; Polmin et al.,1990), although the environment also plays
its role. Finally, McCrae and John (1992) concluded that long history, cross-cultural
replication, empirical validation across many methods and instruments make the five-
factor model a basic discovery of personality psychology. The big five personality
dimensions can be divided into five factors: Extraversion, agreeableness,
conscientiousness, openness, and neuroticism (Costa and McCrae, 1992; McCrae and John,
1992; John and Srivastava, 1999).
Extraversion is indicated by positive feelings (emotions) and tendency to seek company of
others. It represents the tendency to be sociable, assertive, active, upbeat, cheerful,
optimistic, and talkative. Such individuals like people, prefer groups, enjoy excitement and
stimulation, and experience positive effect such as energy, zeal, and excitement (Costa and
McCrae, 1992; John and Srivastava, 1999). Agreeableness is the tendency to be trusting,
compliant, caring, considerate, generous, and gentle. Such individuals have an optimistic
view of human nature. They are sympathetic to others and have a desire to help others; in
return they expect others to be helpful. In essence, agreeable individuals are prosocial and
have communal orientation toward others (Costa and McCrae, 1992; John and Srivastava,
1999). Conscientiousness individuals are purposeful and determined. They have the
tendency to act dutifully, show self-discipline, and aim for achievement against a measure
or outside expectation. Conscientiousness describes socially prescribed impulse control

3
that facilitates task- and goal-directed behaviour, such as thinking before acting, delaying
gratification, following norms and rules, and planning, organizing, and prioritizing tasks
(John and Srivastava, 1999). Neuroticism measures the continuum between emotional
adjustment or stability and emotional maladjustment or neuroticism (Costa and McCrae,
1992). People who have the tendency to experience fear, nervousness, sadness, tension,
anger, and guilt are at high end of neuroticism. Individuals scoring at the low end of
neuroticism are emotionally stable and even-tempered (Costa and McCrae, 1992; John and
Srivastava, 1999). Openness to experience is the tendency of the individual to be
imaginative, sensitive, original in thinking, attentive to inner feelings, appreciative of art,
intellectually curious, and sensitive to beauty (Costa and McCrae, 1992; John and
Srivastava, 1999). Such individuals are willing to entertain new ideas and unconventional
values.
Research on engagement and personality dimensions: The big-five model of personality is
most widely used in psychology (John and Srivastava, 1999). According to Inceoglu and
Warr (2012), no study has yet examined the relationship between engagement and all five
dimensions of personality that is, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,
neuroticism, and openness to experience. However, Mostert and Rothmann (2006) and
Widermuth (2008) investigated relationship between all five traits and engagement.
Extraversions are a strong predictor of positive wellbeing (Diener and Lucas, 1999) and
neuroticism of negative well-being (Keyes et al., 2002). Relative to neurotic individuals,
extraverted individuals are more likely to experience vigor, one of the core dimensions of
work engagement (Brief and Weiss, 2002). However, Langelaan et al. (2006) found that
individual differences do make a difference with respect to work engagement. Results
indicated that engaged employees had lower levels of neuroticism and higher levels of
extraversion. In another study, Hallberg et al. (2007) examined how “Type A” behaviour
relates to burnout and engagement. Type A behaviour was differentiated into two factors:
achievement striving was characterized as energetic, fast, powerful, enterprising,
enthusiastic, ambitious, eager to discuss, talkative, extraverted and strong; and
irritability/impatience was characterized as aggressive, tense, easily annoyed, self-
assertive, easily irritated, and loud. Findings indicated that work engagement was related to
the achievement striving aspect of “Type A” behaviour.

2.3 OBJETIVES OF THE STUDY

4
  To study the personality traits among employees based on the Big 5 personality
model.
 To identify relationship between the demographic profiles of the respondents with
that of the Personality traits.
2.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research methodology is a systematic method of dealing with enunciating or identifying a
problem, formulating, collecting the facts and data, analysis of the data and reaching at
certain generalization for some theoretical formulation. Hence, the process is of utmost
importance for operational and planning problems. It therefore results in advancement and
innovation.
2.4.1 RESEARCH DESIGN
Research Design is the arrangement of conditions for the collections and analysis of data
in a manner that aims to combine relevance to the research purpose with economy
procedure. The Research Design followed in this project work is Descriptive Research. It
includes surveys and fact-finding enquiries of different kinds. The main characteristic of
this design is that the researcher has no control of the variables and he can report only what
has happened or what is happening.
2.4.2 SAMPLE DESIGN
Total Population 300
Sample Size 102
Sampling Technique Stratified Sampling Technique
Sampling Unit Employees of SolarWinds India Pvt Ltd

STRATIFIED RANDOM SAMPLING METHOD:

A method of sampling that involves the division of a population into smaller groups
known as strata. In stratified random sampling, the strata are formed based on members'
shared attributes or characteristics. A random sample from each stratum is taken in a
number proportional to the stratum's size when compared to the population. These subsets
of the strata are then pooled to form a random sample. The strata have been identified
based on the role assigned to the employees.

2.4.3 DATA COLLECTION METHOD

5
The researcher used questionnaire method to collect the data as primary source. Various
research papers and online books, journals and available information from SolarWinds
India Private Limited, Chennai were used as secondary source of data. The Big Five
Personality Model has been adopted from Cattell and Eysenck's representing 5 core traits
which have been used for the collection of data.
2.4.4 STATISTICAL TOOLS USED
The statistical tools like Percentage analysis, Mean Analysis, Independent sample T Test,
Anova and were used.
Percentage Analysis
Percentage method refers to a specified kind which is used in making Comparison between
two or more series of data. Percentages are based on descriptive relationship. It compares
the relative items. The percentage reduces everything to a common base and thereby
allows meaningful comparison.

No. of respondents
Percentage = ------------------------------- x 100
Total no of respondents

Arithmetic Mean
The arithmetic mean or average is the sum of a collection of numbers divided by the
number of numbers in the collection. The collection is often a set of results of an
experiment, or a set of results from a survey. The term "arithmetic mean" is preferred in
some contexts in mathematics and statistics because it helps distinguish it from other
means, such as the geometric mean and the harmonic mean.
Independent Sample T Test
Independent t- test asks whether a difference between two group’s averages is unlikely to
have occurred because of random chance in sample selection. A difference is more likely to
be meaningful and “real” if the difference between the averages is large, and responses are
consistently close to the average values and not widely spread out ( the standard deviation
is low).

Anova

6
 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is a collection of statistical models used in order to
analyze the difference between group means and their associated procedures (such as
“variation” among and between groups), developed by R.A.Fisher. In the ANOVA setting,
the observed variance in a particular variable is portioned into components attributable to
different sources of variation.
The One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is a procedure for testing the hypothesis
that K population means are equal, where K > 2. The One-way ANOVA compares the
means of the samples or groups in order to make inferences about the population means.
The One-way ANOVA is also called a single factor analysis of variance because there is
only one independent variable or factor. The independent variable has nominal levels or a
few ordered levels.
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
 Most respondents might be influenced by their peers in answering the questions.
 Respondents may not have given a proper thought before answering the questions.

CHAPTER III

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

TABLE NO: 13

Mean Analysis of Openness to Experience

Factors Number of Mean

Respondents
Have a rich vocabulary 102 2.11
Have difficulty understanding abstract ideas 102 2.50
Have a vivid imagination 102 2.53
Am not interested in abstract ideas 102 2.53
have excellent ideas 102 2.40
Do not have a good imagination 102 2.58
Am quick to understand 102 2.50
Use difficult words 102 2.75
Spend time reflecting on things 102 2.27
Am full of ideas 102 2.45
Mean Score Value 2.462

7
From the above table, it is inferred that respondents agreed that they had a rich vocabulary.
(Mean value is 2.11)

The above table reveals that the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that they had
difficulty in understanding abstract ideas. (Mean value is 2.50)

It is evident from the above table that the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that
they had a vivid imagination. (Mean value is 2.53)

From the above table, it is inferred that respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that they
are not interested in abstract ideas. (Mean value is 2.53)

The above table reveals that the respondents agreed that they had excellent ideas. (Mean
value is 2.40)

From the above table, it is inferred that the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that
they do not had a good imagination. . (Mean value is 2.58)

The above table reveals that the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that they were
quick to understand things. (Mean value is 2.50)

The above table reveals that the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that they use
difficult words. (Mean value is 2.75)

It is evident from the above table that the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that
they spend time reflecting on things. (Mean value is 2.27)

From the above table, it is inferred that respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that they
are full of ideas. (Mean value is 2.45)

Mean score value-2.462

The above table reveals that the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed to the above
factors of openness to experience.

TABLE NO: 14

Mean Analysis of Conscientiousness

Factor Number of Mean

Respondents

8
Am always prepared 102 2.10
Leave my belongings around 102 2.46
Pay attention to details 102 2.53
Make a mess of things 102 2.74
Get chores done right way 102 2.50
often forget to put things back in their proper place 102 2.40
Like order 102 2.80
Shirk my duties 102 2.44
Follow a schedule 102 2.47
Am exacting in my work 102 2.32
Mean score value 2.476

From the above table, it is inferred that respondents agreed that they were always prepared.
(Mean value is 2.10)

The above table reveals that the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that they leave
their belongings around. (Mean value is 2.46)

It is evident from the above table that the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that
they pay attention to details. (Mean value is 2.53)

From the above table, it is inferred that respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that they
make mess of things. (Mean value is 2.74)

The above table reveals that the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that they get
chores done right way. (Mean value is 2.50)

It is evident from the above table that the respondents agreed that they often forget to put
things back in their proper place. (Mean value is 2.40)

From the above table, it is inferred that the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that
they like orders. (Mean value is 2.80)

The above table reveals that the respondents agreed that they shirk their duties. (Mean
value is 2.44)

From the above table, it is inferred that respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that they
follow a schedule. (Mean value is 2.47)

The above table reveals that the respondents agreed that were exacting in their work.
(Mean value is 2.32)

Mean score value – 2.476

9
It is evident from the above table that the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed to the
above factors of conscientiousness.

TABLE NO: 15

Mean Analysis of Extraversion

Factors Number of Respondents Mean

Am the life of the party 102 2.22
Don't talk a lot 102 2.25
Feel comfortable around people 102 2.51
Keep in the background 102 2.37
Start conversations 102 2.69
Have little to say 102 2.25
Talk to a lot of different people in parties 102 2.42
Don’t like to draw attention to myself 102 2.34
Don’t mind being the centre of attention 102 2.32
Am quiet around strangers 102 2.30
Mean score value 2.367

From the above table, it is inferred that respondents agreed that they are the life of the
party. (Mean value is 2.22)

The above table reveals that the respondents agreed that they don’t talk a lot. (Mean value
is 2.25)

It is evident from the above table that the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that
they feel comfortable around people. (Mean value is 2.51)

From the above table, it is inferred that respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that they
keep in the background. (Mean value is 2.37)

The above table reveals that the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that they start
conversations. (Mean value is 2.69)

It is evident from the above table that the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that
they had little to say. (Mean value is 2.25)

From the above table, it is inferred that the respondents agreed that they talk to a lot of
different people at parties. (Mean value is 2.42)

The above table reveals that the respondents agreed that they don’t like to draw attention to
themselves. (Mean value is 2.34)

10
From the above table, it is inferred that respondents agreed that they don’t mind being the
centre of attention. (Mean value is 2.32)

The above table reveals that the respondents agreed that they are quiet around strangers.
(Mean value is 2.30)

Mean score value- 2.367

It is evident from the above table that the respondents agreed to the factors of Extraversion.

TABLE NO: 16
Mean Analysis of Agreeableness

Factor Number of Mean

Respondents
Feel little concern for others 102 2.05
Am interested in people 102 2.20
Insult people 102 3.91
Sympathize with others feelings 102 2.42
Am not interested in other people’s problems 102 2.64
Have a soft heart 102 2.17
Am not really interested in others 102 2.58
Take time out for others 102 2.35
Feel others emotions 102 2.17
Make people feel at ease 102 2.38
Mean score value 2.487

From the above table, it is inferred that respondents agreed that they feel little concern for
others. (Mean value is 2.05)

The above table reveals that the respondents agreed that they are interested in people.
(Mean value is 2.20)

It is evident from the above table that the respondents disagreed that they insult people.
(Mean value is 3.91)

From the above table, it is inferred that respondents agreed that they sympathize with
others feelings. (Mean value is 2.42)

The above table reveals that the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that they were
not interested in other people’s problems. (Mean value is 2.64)

11
It is evident from the above table that the respondents agreed that they had a soft heart.
(Mean value is 2.17)

From the above table, it is inferred that the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that
they were not really interested in others. (Mean value is 2.58)

The above table reveals that the respondents agreed that they take time out for others.
(Mean value is 2.35)

From the above table, it is inferred that respondents agreed that they feel others emotions.
(Mean value is 2.17)

The above table reveals that the respondents agreed that they make people feel at ease.
(Mean value is 2.38)

Mean score value -2.487

It is evident from the above table that the respondents agreed to the factors of
Agreeableness.

TABLE NO: 17

Mean Analysis of Neuroticism

Factors Number of Mean

Respondents
Get stressed out easily 102 2.35
Am relaxed most of the time 102 2.34
Worry about things 102 2.45
Seldom feel blue 102 2.78
Am easily disturbed 102 2.35
Get upset easily 102 2.42
Change my mood a lot 102 2.52
Have frequent mood swings 102 2.54
Get irritated easily 102 2.42
Often feel blue 102 2.31
Mean score value 2.448

From the above table, it is inferred that respondents agreed that they get stressed out easily.
(Mean value is 2.35)

The above table reveals that the respondents agreed that they were relaxed most of the
time. (Mean value is 2.34)

12
It is evident from the above table that the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that
they worry about things. (Mean value is 2.45)

From the above table, it is inferred that respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that they
seldom feel blue. (Mean value is 2.78)

The above table reveals that the respondents agreed that they easily get disturbed. (Mean
value is 2.35)

It is evident from the above table that the respondents agreed that they get upset easily.
(Mean value is 2.42)

From the above table, it is inferred that the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that
they change their mood a lot. (Mean value is 2.52)

The above table reveals that the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that they had
frequent mood swings. (Mean value is 2.54)

From the above table, it is inferred that respondents agreed that they get irritated easily.
(Mean value is 2.42)

The above table reveals that the respondents agreed that they often feel blue. (Mean value
is 2.31)

Mean score value-2.448

It is inferred from the above table that the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed to the
factors of Neuroticism.

TABLE NO: 18

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AGE AND AGREEABLENESS

Null Hypothesis (H0):-

There is no significant difference between age and factors influencing agreeableness.

Alternative Hypothesis (H1):-

There is significant difference between age and factors influencing agreeableness.

Significant level:-

0.05 Or 5%

13
 ANOVA
Factors Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Feel little concern for Between Groups 6.100 4 1.525 4.269 .003
Within Groups 34.655 97 .357
others
Total 40.755 101
Between Groups 1.044 4 .261 .562 .691
Am interested in people Within Groups 45.034 97 .464
Total 46.078 101
Between Groups 3.516 4 .879 1.112 .355
Insult people
Within Groups 76.690 97 .791
Total 80.206 101
Sympathize with others Between Groups 4.387 4 1.097 1.468 .218
Within Groups 72.486 97 .747
feelings
Total 76.873 101
Am not interested in Between Groups 7.427 4 1.857 2.365 .058
Within Groups 76.151 97 .785
other people’s problems Total 83.578 101
Between Groups 6.549 4 1.637 2.100 .087
Have a soft heart Within Groups 75.618 97 .780
Total 82.167 101
Am not really interested Between Groups 8.095 4 2.024 3.866 .006
Within Groups 50.778 97 .523
in others Total 58.873 101
Between Groups .976 4 .244 .295 .881
Take time out for others Within Groups 80.318 97 .828
Total 81.294 101
Between Groups 6.670 4 1.667 2.718 .034
Feel others emotions Within Groups 59.497 97 .613
Total 66.167 101
Between Groups 2.056 4 .514 .830 .509
Make people feel at ease Within Groups 60.033 97 .619
Total 62.088 101
Th
e table value for the factor like feel little concern for others (.003) is less than 0.05 level of
significance and therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. Hence, the above mentioned
factor has significance on age of the respondents.

The table value for the factors like Interested in people (.691), Insult people (.355),
Sympathize with others feelings (.218), Not interested in other people’s problems (.058),
Have a soft heart (.087), Not really interested in others (.006), Take time out for others
(.881), Feel other’s emotions (.034), Make people feel at ease (.509) is more than .05 level

14
 of significance and therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. Hence, the above mentioned
factors of agreeableness have no significance on the age of the respondents.

TABLE NO: 19

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION AND

CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

Null Hypothesis (H0):-

There is no significant difference between educational qualification and factors influencing

conscientiousness.

Alternative Hypothesis (H1):-

There is significant difference between educational qualification and factors influencing

conscientiousness.

Significant level:-

0.05 Or 5%

ANOVA

Factor Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 2.666 3 .889 1.801 .152
Am always prepared Within Groups 48.353 98 .493
Total 51.020 101
Leave my belongings Between Groups 1.263 3 .421 .687 .562
Within Groups 60.080 98 .613
around Total 61.343 101
Between Groups 1.844 3 .615 .819 .486
Pay attention to details Within Groups 73.568 98 .751
Total 75.412 101
Between Groups 4.373 3 1.458 1.561 .204
Make a mess of things Within Groups 91.480 98 .933
Total 95.853 101
Get chores done right Between Groups 2.654 3 .885 1.525 .213
Within Groups 56.846 98 .580
way Total 59.500 101
often forget to put Between Groups 1.980 3 .660 1.280 .286
Within Groups 50.540 98 .516
things back in their
Total 52.520 101
proper place

15
 Between Groups 5.477 3 1.826 1.711 .170
Like order Within Groups 104.601 98 1.067
Total 110.078 101
Between Groups 2.703 3 .901 1.021 .387
Shirk my duties Within Groups 86.444 98 .882
Total 89.147 101
Between Groups 3.058 3 1.019 1.712 .169
Follow a schedule Within Groups 58.353 98 .595
Total 61.412 101
Am exacting in my Between Groups 2.607 3 .869 1.785 .155
Within Groups 47.716 98 .487
work Total 50.324 101
Th
e table value for the factors like Always prepared (.152) ,Leave my belongings around
(.562),Pay attention to details (.486), Make a mess of things(.204), Get chores done right
way(.213),Often forget to put things back in their proper place (.286),Like order (.170),
Shirk my duties (.387), Follow a schedule (.169) ,Exacting in their work (.155) is more
than .05 level of significance and therefore the null hypothesis is accepted . Hence, the
above mentioned factors of conscientiousness have no significance on the Educational
Qualification of the respondents.

TABLE NO: 20

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MONTHLY INCOME AND OPENNESS TO

EXPERIENCE

Null Hypothesis (H0):-

There is no significant difference between monthly income and factors influencing

openness to experience.

Alternative Hypothesis (H1):-

There is significant difference between monthly income and factors influencing openness
to experience.

Significant level:-

0.05 Or 5%

ANOVA

16
 Factors Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 5.763 5 1.153 2.403 .042
Have a rich vocabulary Within Groups 46.050 96 .480
Total 51.814 101
Have difficulty Between Groups 7.001 5 1.400 1.962 .091
Within Groups 68.499 96 .714
understanding abstract
Total 75.500 101
ideas
Have a vivid Between Groups 5.488 5 1.098 1.819 .116
Within Groups 57.924 96 .603
imagination Total 63.412 101
Am not interested in Between Groups 10.961 5 2.192 3.481 .006
Within Groups 60.451 96 .630
abstract ideas Total 71.412 101
Between Groups 13.907 5 2.781 3.485 .006
have excellent ideas Within Groups 76.613 96 .798
Total 90.520 101
Do not have a good Between Groups 1.191 5 .238 .348 .882
Within Groups 65.682 96 .684
imagination Total 66.873 101
Between Groups 4.242 5 .848 1.330 .258
Am quick to understand Within Groups 61.258 96 .638
Total 65.500 101
Between Groups 5.367 5 1.073 1.717 .138
Use difficult words Within Groups 60.005 96 .625
Total 65.373 101
Between Groups 6.134 5 1.227 2.174 .063
Spend time reflecting on
Within Groups 54.180 96 .564
things
Total 60.314 101
Between Groups 9.301 5 1.860 3.192 .010
Am full of ideas Within Groups 55.954 96 .583
Total 65.255 101
The table value for the factors like have a rich vocabulary (.042) , have difficulty
understanding abstract ideas (.091),have a vivid imagination (.116), not interested in
abstract ideas(.006),have excellent ideas (.006),do not have a good imagination (.882),
quick to understand things(.258),use difficult words (.138), spend time reflecting on
things(.063) ,full of ideas (.010) is more than .05 level of significance and therefore the
null hypothesis is accepted . Hence, the above mentioned factor of openness to experience
has no significance on the Monthly Income of the respondents.

TABLE NO: 21

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AGE AND OPENNESS TO EXPERIENCE

17
Null Hypothesis (H0):-

There is no significant difference between age and factors influencing openness to

experience.

Alternative Hypothesis (H1):-

There is significant difference age and factors influencing openness to experience.

Significant level:-

0.05 Or 5%

ANOVA

Factors Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 7.522 4 1.881 4.118 .004
Have a rich vocabulary Within Groups 44.291 97 .457
Total 51.814 101
Have difficulty Between Groups 6.081 4 1.520 2.124 .084
Within Groups 69.419 97 .716
understanding abstract
Total 75.500 101
ideas
Have a vivid Between Groups 6.568 4 1.642 2.802 .030
Within Groups 56.844 97 .586
imagination Total 63.412 101
Am not interested in Between Groups 10.913 4 2.728 4.374 .003
Within Groups 60.499 97 .624
abstract ideas Total 71.412 101
Between Groups 9.700 4 2.425 2.911 .025
have excellent ideas Within Groups 80.819 97 .833
Total 90.520 101
Do not have a good Between Groups 5.599 4 1.400 2.216 .073
Within Groups 61.273 97 .632
imagination Total 66.873 101
Between Groups 9.034 4 2.259 3.880 .006
Am quick to understand Within Groups 56.466 97 .582
Total 65.500 101
Between Groups 5.373 4 1.343 2.172 .078
Use difficult words Within Groups 59.999 97 .619
Total 65.373 101
Spend time reflecting on Between Groups 4.332 4 1.083 1.877 .121
Within Groups 55.981 97 .577
things Total 60.314 101
Between Groups 8.412 4 2.103 3.589 .009
Am full of ideas Within Groups 56.843 97 .586
Total 65.255 101

18
 Th
e table value for the factor like have a rich vocabulary (.004), not interested in abstract
ideas (.003) is less than 0.05 level of significance and therefore the null hypothesis is
rejected. Hence, the above mentioned factor has significance on age of the respondents.

The table value for the factors like have difficulty understanding abstract ideas (.084), have
a vivid imagination (.030), have excellent ideas (.025), do not have a good imagination
(.073), quick to understand things (.006), use difficult words (.078), spend time reflecting
on things (.121), full of ideas (.009) is more than .05 level of significance and therefore the
null hypothesis is accepted. Hence, the above mentioned factor of openness to experience
has no significance on the age of the respondents.

TABLE NO: 22

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ROLE ASSIGNED AND EXTRAVERSION

Null Hypothesis (H0)

There is no significant difference between role assigned and factors influencing

extraversion.

Alternative Hypothesis (H1)

There is significant difference between role assigned and factors influencing extraversion.

Significant level:-

0.05 Or 5%

ANOVA
Factors Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 3.981 4 .995 1.249 .295
Am the life of the party Within Groups 77.274 97 .797
Total 81.255 101
Between Groups 4.581 4 1.145 1.715 .153
Don't talk a lot Within Groups 64.792 97 .668
Total 69.373 101
Feel comfortable around Between Groups 1.168 4 .292 .454 .769
Within Groups 62.323 97 .643
people Total 63.490 101
Between Groups 4.046 4 1.011 1.758 .144
Keep in the background Within Groups 55.798 97 .575
Total 59.843 101

19
 Between Groups 4.144 4 1.036 1.199 .316
Start conversations Within Groups 83.817 97 .864
Total 87.961 101
Between Groups 1.490 4 .373 .476 .753
Have little to say Within Groups 75.882 97 .782
Total 77.373 101
Talk to a lot of different Between Groups 9.898 4 2.474 4.531 .002
Within Groups 52.975 97 .546
people in parties Total 62.873 101
Between Groups 4.253 4 1.063 1.458 .221
Don’t like to draw
Within Groups 70.737 97 .729
attention to myself Total 74.990 101
Between Groups 9.062 4 2.265 3.084 .019
Don’t mind being the
Within Groups 71.262 97 .735
centre of attention
Total 80.324 101
Am quiet around Between Groups 3.603 4 .901 1.457 .221
Within Groups 59.975 97 .618
strangers Total 63.578 101

The table value for the factor like talk to a lot of different people at parties (.002) is less
than 0.05 level of significance and therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. Hence, the
above mentioned factor has significance on role assigned of the respondents.

The table value for the factors like am the life of the party (.295), don’t talk a lot (.153),
feel comfortable around people (.769), keep in the background (.144), start conversations
(.316), have little to say (.753), don’t like to draw attention to myself (.221), don’t mind
being the centre of attention (.019), quiet around strangers (.221) is more than .05 level of
significance and therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. Hence, the above mentioned
factor of extraversion has no significance on the role assigned of the respondents.

TABLE NO: 23

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ROLE ASSIGNED AND OPENNESS TO

EXPERIENCE

Null Hypothesis (H0):-

There is no significant difference between role assigned and the factors influencing
openness to experience.

Alternative Hypothesis (H1):-

20
 There is significant difference between role assigned and the factors influencing openness
to experience.

Significant level:-

0.05 Or 5%

ANOVA
Factors Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups .416 4 .104 .196 .940
Have a rich vocabulary Within Groups 51.398 97 .530
Total 51.814 101
Have difficulty Between Groups 7.130 4 1.782 2.529 .045
understanding abstract Within Groups 68.370 97 .705
Total 75.500 101
ideas
Have a vivid Between Groups 6.817 4 1.704 2.921 .025
Within Groups 56.595 97 .583
imagination Total 63.412 101
Am not interested in Between Groups 2.292 4 .573 .804 .526
Within Groups 69.120 97 .713
abstract ideas Total 71.412 101
Between Groups 4.239 4 1.060 1.191 .320
have excellent ideas Within Groups 86.281 97 .889
Total 90.520 101
Do not have a good Between Groups 4.415 4 1.104 1.714 .153
Within Groups 62.457 97 .644
imagination Total 66.873 101
Between Groups 4.186 4 1.046 1.655 .167
Am quick to understand Within Groups 61.314 97 .632
Total 65.500 101
Between Groups 1.002 4 .251 .378 .824
Use difficult words Within Groups 64.370 97 .664
Total 65.373 101
Spend time reflecting on Between Groups 4.318 4 1.080 1.870 .122
Within Groups 55.995 97 .577
things Total 60.314 101
Between Groups 2.385 4 .596 .920 .456
Am full of ideas Within Groups 62.870 97 .648
Total 65.255 101
Th
e table value for the factors like have a rich vocabulary (.940), have difficulty
understanding abstract ideas (.045), have a vivid imagination (.025), not interested in
abstract ideas (.526), have excellent ideas (.320), do not have a good imagination (.153),
quick to understand (.167), use difficult words (.824),spend time reflecting on things

21
 (.122), full of ideas (.456) is more than .05 level of significance and therefore the null
hypothesis is accepted . Hence, the above mentioned factor of openness to experience has
no significance on the role assigned of the respondents.

TABLE NO: 24

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENDER AND NEUROTICISM

Null Hypothesis (H0):-

There is no significant difference between role assigned and the factors influencing
openness to experience.

Alternative Hypothesis (H1):-

There is significant difference between role assigned and the factors influencing openness
to experience.

Significant level:-

0.05 Or 5%

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality
Factors
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. T Df Sig. (2-tailed)

Get stressed out Equal variances assumed 1.482 .226 -1.080 100 .283
easily Equal variances not -1.072 94.479 .286
assumed
Am relaxed most of Equal variances assumed 1.017 .316 .787 100 .433
the time Equal variances not .778 91.161 .439
assumed
Worry about things Equal variances assumed 1.812 .181 .642 100 .523
Equal variances not .635 92.006 .527
assumed
Seldom feel blue Equal variances assumed .725 .396 .623 100 .535
Equal variances not .621 96.914 .536
assumed
Equal variances assumed .162 .688 -.711 100 .479

22
 Equal variances not -.709 97.591 .480
assumed
Get upset easily Equal variances assumed .817 .368 1.444 100 .152
Equal variances not 1.455 99.995 .149
assumed
Change my mood a lot Equal variances assumed .797 .374 .682 100 .497
Equal variances not .687 99.998 .493
assumed
Have frequent mood Equal variances assumed 2.272 .135 .709 100 .480
Equal variances not .700 89.544 .486
swings
assumed
Get irritated easily Equal variances assumed .911 .342 1.783 100 .078
Equal variances not 1.773 95.726 .079
assumed
Often feel blue Equal variances assumed .001 .980 1.045 100 .298
Equal variances not 1.040 95.927 .301
assumed
T
he above table depicts that f value for the factor get stressed out easily for the t test is
(.286), relaxed most of the time is (.439), worry about things (.527), seldom feel blue
(.536), easily disturbed (.480), get upset easily (.152), change my mood a lot (.497), have
frequent mood swings (.486),get irritated easily (.079),often feel blue (.301)which is higher
than the significance level of 0.05, Hence the null hypothesis is accepted and therefore
gender does not influence the factors of neuroticism.

TABLE NO: 25

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MARITAL STATUS AND EXTRAVERSION

Null Hypothesis (H0):-

There is no significant difference between role assigned and the factors influencing
openness to experience.

Alternative Hypothesis (H1):-

There is significant difference between role assigned and the factors influencing openness
to experience.

Significant level:-

23
0.05 Or 5%

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
Sig.
Factors F Sig. T Df (2tailed)
Am the life of the Equal variances assumed 2.437 .122 1.428 100 .156
Equal variances not 1.424 97.764 .158
party
assumed
Don't talk a lot Equal variances assumed .512 .476 .121 100 .904
Equal variances not .122 99.912 .903
assumed
Feel comfortable Equal variances assumed .023 .881 -1.248 100 .215
around people Equal variances not -1.249 99.458 .215
assumed
Keep in the Equal variances assumed .362 .549 .448 100 .655
background Equal variances not .447 98.619 .656
assumed
Start Equal variances assumed 2.552 .113 .714 100 .477
Equal variances not .720 98.370 .473
conversations
assumed
Have little to say Equal variances assumed 2.585 .111 .115 100 .909
Equal variances not .116 99.555 .908
assumed
Talk to a lot of Equal variances assumed .038 .845 .587 100 .559
different people in Equal variances not .587 99.309 .559

parties assumed
Don’t like to draw Equal variances assumed 4.154 .044 .272 100 .787
attention to Equal variances not .273 99.029 .785
myself assumed
Don’t mind being Equal variances assumed 2.189 .142 .475 100 .636
the centre of Equal variances not .480 97.751 .633
attention assumed

24
Am quiet around Equal variances assumed .192 .662 -.222 100 .825
Equal variances not -.221 98.431 .825
strangers
assumed
Th
e above table depicts that f value for the factor am life of the party for the t test is (.158),
don’t talk a lot (.904), feel comfortable around people (.215), keep in the background
(.656), start conversations (.477), have little to say (.909),talk to a lot of different people at
parties (.559),don’t like to draw attention to oneself (.787),don’t mind being the centre of
attention (.636),quiet around strangers (.825) which is higher than the significance level of
0.05, Hence the null hypothesis is accepted and therefore marital status does not influence
the factors of extraversion.

TABLE NO: 26

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENDER AND CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

Null Hypothesis (H0):-

There is no significant difference between role assigned and the factors influencing
openness to experience.

Alternative Hypothesis (H1):-

There is significant difference between role assigned and the factors influencing openness
to experience.

Significant level:-

0.05 Or 5%

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality of
Factors Variances t-test for Equality of Means
Sig. (2-
F Sig. T Df tailed)
Am always Equal variances assumed .406 .525 .474 100 .636
Equal variances not assumed .471 94.927 .639
prepared
Equal variances assumed 3.434 .067 -1.507 100 .135

25
 Equal variances not assumed -1.485 88.438 .141

Pay attention Equal variances assumed 1.179 .280 1.013 100 .314
to details Equal variances not assumed 1.005 94.377 .317
Make a mess Equal variances assumed .023 .880 .669 100 .505
of things Equal variances not assumed .667 97.594 .506
Get chores Equal variances assumed .165 .685 .257 100 .798
done right Equal variances not assumed .256 96.622 .798
way
often forget Equal variances assumed .047 .829 1.184 100 .239
to put things Equal variances not assumed 1.184 98.630 .239
back in their
Like order Equal variances assumed .145 .704 .871 100 .386
proper place
Equal variances not assumed .874 99.691 .384

Shirk my Equal variances assumed .035 .853 .881 100 .380

duties Equal variances not assumed .877 96.322 .383

Follow a Equal variances assumed .044 .835 .149 100 .882

schedule Equal variances not assumed .149 99.228 .882

Am exacting Equal variances assumed .053 .818 1.277 100 .205

in my work
Equal variances not assumed 1.273 97.268 .206

Th
e above table depicts that f value for the factor always prepared for the t test is (.639), leave
my belongings around (.141), pay attention to details (.317), make a mess of things(.506),
get chores done right away(.798), often forget to put things back in their proper place
(.239), like order (.386), shirk my duties (.383),follow a schedule (.882),exacting in work
(.206) which is higher than the significance level of 0.05, Hence the null hypothesis is
accepted and therefore gender does not influence the factors of conscientiousness.

TABLE NO: 27

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MARITAL STATUS AND OPENNESS TO

EXPERIENCE

Null Hypothesis (H0):-

26
 There is no significant difference between role assigned and the factors influencing
openness to experience.

Alternative Hypothesis (H1):-

There is significant difference between role assigned and the factors influencing openness
to experience.

Significant level:-

0.05 Or 5%

Independent Samples Test

Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Factors Variances t-test for Equality of Means
Sig. (2-
F Sig. T Df tailed)
Have a rich vocabulary Equal variances assumed .103 .749 -.354 100 .724
Equal variances not -.351 93.5 .726
assumed
Have difficulty Equal variances assumed .210 .648 .114 100 .909
understanding abstract
Equal variances not .115 99.9 .909
ideas
assumed
Have a vivid Equal variances assumed .010 .920 .763 100 .447
imagination Equal variances not .762 98.4 .448
assumed
Am not interested in Equal variances assumed .027 .869 1.195 100 .235
abstract ideas
Equal variances not 1.193 98.5 .236
assumed
have excellent ideas Equal variances assumed .602 .440 - 100 .108
Equal variances not 1.624
- 99.7 .107
assumed
1.626
Do not have a good Equal variances assumed 4.69 .033 -.083 100 .934
imagination
Equal variances not -.084 97.3 .933
assumed
Am quick to understand Equal variances assumed 1.00 .319 -.613 100 .541

Equal variances not -.610 95.2 .543

assumed
Use difficult words Equal variances assumed 6.01 .016 - 100 .176
1.363

27
 Equal variances not - 89.6 .181
assumed
1.349
Spend time reflecting Equal variances assumed .799 .373 .909 100 .365
on things Equal variances not .914 99.8 .363
assumed
Am full of ideas Equal variances assumed .144 .705 -.269 100 .788
Equal variances not -.270 99.8 .788
assumed

T
he above table depicts that f value for the factor have a rich vocabulary for the t test is
(.726), have difficulty understanding abstract ideas (.909), have a vivid imagination (.448),
not interested in abstract ideas(.236), have excellent ideas(.108), do not have a good
imagination (.934), quick to understand (.543), use difficult words (.181), spend time
reflecting on things(.365),full of ideas (.788) which is higher than the significance level of
0.05, Hence the null hypothesis is accepted and therefore marital status does not influence
the factors of openness to experience

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS, DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION

4.1 RESULTS

 From the mean analysis of factors affecting personality traits, it is evident that some factors
like agreeableness (2.487), conscientiousness (2.476), and extroversion (2.367) are high
when compared to the other factors like openness to experience (2.462) and neuroticism
(2.448).
 There is no significant difference between age and factors influencing agreeableness except
a factor feel little concern for others (0.003).
 There is no significant difference between educational qualification and factors influencing
conscientiousness.
 There is no significant difference between monthly income and factors influencing
openness to experience
 There is no significant difference between age and factors influencing openness to
experience except a factor had a rich vocabulary (0.004).
 There is no significant difference between role assigned and factors influencing
extraversion except a factor talk to a different people at parties (0.002).

28
 There is no significant difference between role assigned and factors influencing openness
to experience.
 There is no significant difference between gender and factors influencing neuroticism.
 There is no significant difference between marital status and factors influencing
extraversion.
 There is no significant difference between gender and factors influencing
conscientiousness.
 There is no significant difference between marital status and factors influencing openness
to experience.

4.2 DISCUSSIONS

 From the study conducted, it is evident that the age had influence on few factors of
agreeableness. The respondents tend to showcase a positive social interaction. They are
always pleasant to be around, work to help others and cooperate well in group situations.
They tend to show affection readily and often.
 The age also had influence on few factors of openness to experience, which includes rich
vocabulary and respondents were not interest in abstract ideas. The respondents felt that
they should have a better level of vocabulary for having a good rapport with their clients.
In order to have that, it would be better if the management arrange a training module for
both the fast as well as the slow learners. The respondents should require the basic
vocabulary knowledge for their daily work schedule.
 Role assigned also had influence on respondents being extrovert. People who is friendly
and outgoing. Person who is energized by being around other people. They are very
talkative people. They tend to think as they speak and often think well when they are
talking. They enjoy social situations and make relationships with people around. Extrovert
behaviour seems to be the standard in American society, which means that other behaviour
is judged against the ways an extrovert should behave. Hence, Role assigned had a close
relation with people being extrovert. A person having traits which classify him as an
extrovert would, probably, want to hold a dominant position in his environment such as the
office. Whether or not he is able to achieve and assume the role and authority he desires,
actually measure his satisfaction with himself, his work and his colleagues.
 It is evident from the above study that the factors like agreeableness, conscientiousness and
extroversion influence the respondents more than the other factor like openness to
experience and neuroticism. The agreeableness trait reflects individual differences in
general concern for social harmony. Agreeable individual’s value getting along with others.

29
They are generally considerate, kind, generous, trusting and trustworthy, helpful, and
willing to compromise their interests with others. Agreeable people also have an optimistic
view of human nature. Because agreeableness is a social trait, research has shown that
one's agreeableness positively correlates with the quality of relationships with one's team
members. Agreeableness also positively predicts transformational leadership skills.

4.3 CONCLUSION

From the findings of the present study, it is quite evident that all the big five traits
extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience
play a significant role in developing the employee performance which will result in the
organizational output as well as it also enlighten researchers, practitioners, human resource
managers and government officers towards using the findings of the study to justify their
efforts in designing appropriate learning and performance improvement interventions so
that job can be structured in relation to personality traits of employees which can lead to
improving employee performance, which in turn can lead to organizational development.

Human beings bring in their personality, physical and mental abilities, and other stable
traits to work. The human beings bring their traits to work, every organization is different,
and every job within the organization is also different. When hiring employees, companies
are interested in assessing at least two types of fit. Person–organization fit refers to the
degree to which a person’s values, personality, goals, and other characteristics match those
of the organization. Person–job fits the degree to which a person’s skill, knowledge,
abilities, and other characteristics match the job demands.

The first thing many recruiters look at is the person–job fit. This is not surprising, because
person–job fit is related to a number of positive work attitudes such as satisfaction with the
work environment, identification with the organization, job satisfaction, and work
behaviours such as job performance. Companies are often also interested in hiring
candidates who will fit into the company culture. When people fit into their organization,
they tend to be more satisfied with their jobs, more committed to their companies, and
more influential in their company, and they actually remain longer in their company.

30
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

C.R.Kothari, Research Methodology, New Age International Publishers, 2004, Pages 2,

31,35,58,95,100,111

Global Journal of Human Resource Management Vol.2, No.3, pp.59- 72, September 2014

International Journal of Business Research and Management (IJBRM), Volume (3): Issue
(2): 2012 60

K.Aswathappa, Human Resource Management, Tata McGraw-Hill publishing Company

Limited, 2009, Pages 5,6,8,9,22,23,32

Steven L McShane, Mary Ann Von Glinow, Radha R Sharma, Organizational Behaviour,
Tata McGraw-Hill publishing Company Limited, 2006,Pages 2,67,68,69,71,73

African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 7(15), pp. 1344-1353, 21 April, 2013, ISSN
1993-8233 © 2013 Academic Journals

Links:

www.academicjournals.org/ajbm

http://catdir.loc.gov

www.eajournals.org

www.humancapital.in

www.journals.elsevier.com

www.solarwinds.com

31