OPENNESS TO EXPERIENCE AND WORK OUTCOMES: EXPLORING THE MODERATING EFFECTS OF CONSCIENTIOUSNESS AND JOB COMPLEXITY

Abstract

This study investigated the moderating effects of job complexity and conscientiousness on the relationship between openness to experience and work outcomeson a sample of 150 executives in a medical transcription company. Work outcomes were measured through job performance and job progression. It was found that openness to experience showed a positive relationship with performance in high complexity jobs and a negative relationship with performance in low complexity jobs. It was also seen that openness showed a negative relationship with progression when the individual was high on conscientiousness and a positive relationship with progression when the individual was low on conscientiousness.

Full text

Great Lakes Herald Page 18Vol 7, No 2, September 2013
OPENNESS TO EXPERIENCE AND WORK OUTCOMES:
EXPLORING THE MODERATING EFFECTS OF
CONSCIENTIOUSNESS AND JOB COMPLEXITY
Gouri Mohan & Zubin R.Mulla
Tata Institute of Social Sciences,Mumbai
Abstract.This study investigated the moderating effects of job
complexity and conscientiousness on the relationship between openness to
experience and work outcomeson a sample of 150 executives in a medical
transcription company. Work outcomes were measured through job
performance and job progression. It was found that openness to experience
showed a positive relationship with performance in high complexity
jobs and a negative relationship with performance in low complexity
jobs. It was also seen that openness showed a negative relationship with
progression when the individual was high on conscientiousness and a
positive relationship with progression when the individual was low on
conscientiousness.
Key Words: Big ve theory, Job Performance, Job Complexity, Job
Progression,
The context of operation of organizations has undergone
tremendous changes in the past few decades. Increased competition
has forced organizations to optimize innovation in products, services,
and modes of production. Globalization requires that businesses adapt
fast to dissimilar cultural inuences.There is an increased need in the
work environment to adapt, absorb, question, and create new things.
In this study, we explore the personality trait openness to experience,
which describes these qualities in individuals. It details the extent to which an
individual is creative, curious, and liberal. Openness to experience indicates
a high level of intellectual and emotional development in a person. Hence,
it would seem that openness be considered as a critical characteristic in
professionals. On the contrary, however, openness has been shown to have
a rather amorphous relationship with work outcomes. This relationship, its
causes and nature, is explored in this study through the two contextual factors
of job complexity and conscientiousness characteristic of the individual.

Page 19Great Lakes Herald Vol 7, No 2, September 2013
The rst argument made here is that the relevance of openness
to work outcomes will depend on the job characteristics and its design.
Individuals who are more open will show a marked preference for
unstructuredness in tasks and modes of operation. Moreover, such
individuals value autonomy in their work and like to be constantly
challenged. Thus, it is proposed that openness should be perceived as a
positive attribute in only those individuals who are engaged in jobs that
are more complex and entail a high level of independence, autonomy,
and creative thinking.Furthermore, high openness may act as a deterrent
in jobs that contain mechanical tasks with little independent thinking.
A second reason for the lack of visible correlation to work
outcomeswould be the moderation occurring due to other personality
characteristics that may outweigh the effects of openness. A scientist
who is low on openness may still show good performance if he or she is
hardworking and dedicated. At the same time, the data entry operator may
have good temperament and be hard working, but high openness will cause
dissatisfaction with the job and subsequently lead to low output. Hence, it
is proposed that the inuence of openness can be offset by an interaction of
the personality trait of conscientiousness. Consequently, we can see that the
relation of openness to work outcomes is rather uneven and impinging on a
number of external conditions and constraints. While it does exist, it is difcult
to predict when and how it exists. These themes are studied in detail here.
In this study, we explore the inuence of openness on work
outcomes and its variation due to the complexity of the job and the
conscientiousness of the individual. We also try to examine how the nature
and effects of opennesscan be differentiated in men and women. In these
contexts, we seek to nd patterns of inuence of openness to external
and internal experience. This is the rst study undertaken of its kind and
hence it is mostly exploratory in nature. Work outcomes are measured
through job progression and the quantitative performance of the employee.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES
Personality Studies in Talent Management
Personality is dened as the somewhat permanent and steady
constitution of an individual’s “character, temperament, intellect and
physique” that is critical in constituting his or her responses to the

Great Lakes Herald Page 20Vol 7, No 2, September 2013
environment. This constitution is what makes the person unique and
different from others (Eysenck&Eysenck, 1985). Personality assessments
are one of the most prominent methods employed in selection and
promotion over the years. Tracing the history of personality-performance
studies over the last century, Barrick, Mount, and Judge (2001) cite a
number of reasons for the negative conclusions regarding the predictability
of personality given until the 1980s.One of the main factors was the
lack of a classication model like the Five Factor Model(FFM) that has
helped reduce the thousands of personality traits into a smaller number
of well-dened factors. Another problem was that there was noclarity in
identication of the traits, with the same labels being used for different
traits and same trait being called by different labels. In addition, there
was no concrete method used for the measurement of the traits. All of
this contributed to the conclusion that personality had little or no power
to predict work outcomes. Nevertheless, the second phase of research
starting from the mid-1980s used some sort of classication like the FFM to
discriminate between personality factors. This, along with the large number
of meta-analytic studies, has helped in giving a more extensive and valid
understanding of the predictive power of personality traits (Barrick et al.,
2001). The FFM has so far been the most reliable model that has been used
to establish the relation between the personality traits and work outcomes.
McCrae and John (1991) claim that the advantage of the FFM is threefold,
in that it helps to integrate a wide array of personality constructs, provides
a global description of the personality in just ve factors and still remains
the most comprehensive basis of relating personality to other phenomena.
The ve factor model of personality.The Five Factor Model (FFM)
is a hierarchical organization of personality traits along ve dimensions.
The FFM originated from the study of natural language trait terms
(McCrae & John, 1991) and it describes the personality traits in terms
of ve dimensions called the Big Five viz. extraversion, agreeableness,
conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience. Extraversion
describes the level of assertiveness, activity, enthusiasm, and talkativeness
in a person. Agreeableness indicates if the individual is appreciative,
forgiving, trusting and kind. Conscientiousness describes the extent to which
an individual is organized, reliable, efcient, hardworking, and responsible.
Neuroticism measures whether an individual is unstable, anxious, tense,
and worrying. The last factor openness measures the degree of artistic
inclination, curiosity, imagination, introspection and the range of interests
an individual possesses (McCrae & John, 1991). Openness is alternatively

Page 21Great Lakes Herald Vol 7, No 2, September 2013
dened as Intellect or Imagination in the lexical model operationalized
by scientists like Norman, Digman, Goldberg etc (Goldberg, 1993).
Openness to experience in personality.Openness to experience
has been the most controversial among the personality factors. Openness
to experience is expressed by a need to expand and examine experience.
It denes the extent to which an individual allows himself or herself to
be affected by external or internal inuences (McCrae, 1992). A person
high on openness to experience is likely to seek novel experiences,
initiate new ideas, and have a creative bend of mind. Fiske (1994)
interprets openness to experience (referred to as culture) as “taking in,
processing, weighing what the world offer.” Such individuals are capable
of feeling deeper and more diverse emotions than a normal human being.
The different facets of openness are fantasy, aesthetics, feelings,
actions, ideas, and values (Costa &McCrae, 1992). Fantasy corresponds
to high imagination in an individual. Aesthetics measures an individual’s
inherent interest in art and beauty. Feelings talks about the extent to which
an individual is open to his/her own feelings. The above three facets form
a factorcalled openness to internal experience(Grifn &Hesketh, 2004).
“The facet, actionscorresponds to the willingness to do different and more
varied activities. Ideas refer to individuals who are more open to ideas, are
likely to think more creatively than others. Values indicate the tendency to
question established political and religious dogmas. The facets of actions,
ideas, and values form a factor called openness to external experience”
(Grifn &Hesketh, 2004).
Work Outcomes and Factors Affecting Work Outcomes
There are various means of quantifying work outcomes. Barrick
and Mount (1991) used three types of criteria to measure performance:
personnel data that includes salary and status change, tenure etc, job
prociency that includes performance ratings and productivity, and
training prociency. Job performance can also be measured in terms of
task performance, which deals with the ability to plan, organize, execute
and control, or contextual performance relating to the behavior in social
and psychological contexts like the ability to negotiate, mentor or
coachetc (Oh, In-Sue, & Berry, 2009). Career success is dened as the
“positive psychological or work-related outcomes or achievements one
has accumulated as a result of one’s work experiences” (Judge, Cable,

Great Lakes Herald Page 22Vol 7, No 2, September 2013
Boudreau, &BretzJr, 1994: 3). It is mainly measured in terms of objective
or extrinsic success and subjective or intrinsic success. Objective success
is measured in terms of pay and career progression while subjective
success is measured in terms of career and job satisfaction (Judge,
Higgins, Thoresen, &Barrick, 1999; Seibert, Kraimer, &Liden, 2001).
Personality has been shown to have an extensive inuence in
the context of work outcomes. This has been established primarily after
the development of the FFM. It has been seen that conscientiousness is
a valid predictor of performance across different jobs (Barrick&Mount,
1991; Barricket al., 2001). Emotional stability is also related to overall
performance for different occupations though its effect is not as strong as
conscientiousness (Barricket al., 2001). A meta-analytic study conducted
by Mount, Barrick, and Stewart (1998) found that while conscientiousness,
emotional stability, and agreeableness were valid predictors in jobs that
involved more client interactions, emotional stability and agreeableness
were seen to be the predictors in jobs that required teamwork. Extraversion
was seen as relevant to jobs that involved social interaction. Personality
traits not only inuence the quantiable outcomes of the job but also predict
desirable behavior that may have an indirect impact on the work outcomes
like attracting organizational sponsorship (Turban &Dougherty, 1994).
The Role of Openness in Predicting Work Outcomes
Although there is no evidence that openness can positively affect
overall work outcomes, it is seen to have implications on performance under
specic conditions and within specic criteria. Opennessis an important
quality required for skill acquisition (Oakes, Ferris,Martocchio, Buckley,
& Broach, 2001) and it affects overall training prociency (Barrick&
Mount, 1991). It was also seen that those who are high on openness showed
better performance in unfamiliar environments (Bing &Lounsbury, 2000).
Another interesting characteristic of open individuals is their bent for
creative behavior. Scott Shane (1995) dened a group of four traits that
he stated characterized persons who would be instrumental in bringing
about innovation in any organization. These included value for autonomy
that is needed to encourage innovative behavior and the ability to provide
opportunities to violate organizational norms and standard operating
procedures in order to facilitate experimentation. The openness to ideas
facilitates these individuals to initiate new strategies while the openness
to values helps in implementing new strategies by challenging the existing

Page 23Great Lakes Herald Vol 7, No 2, September 2013
norms. Facets of openness like imagination, spontaneity, risk-taking, and
intuitiveness were seen as being relevant elements in the performance
context of Organization Development consultants (Hamilton, 1988).
The natural ability to thrive in higher complexity would mean that
openindividuals would be preferred for higher positions in the hierarchy.
This is supplemented by the correspondence of openness to ambition and
need for achievement (De Jong, Velde, & Jansen, 2001). Open individuals
also show a natural aptitude to emerge as leaders in a group since they
are most likely to initiate new ideas, ask more questions, and give more
opinions (Kickul& Newman, 2000). Therefore, in addition to predicting
performance, openness is also an important quality in predicting career
progress.
Thus, it can be concluded by analyzing previous studies that
the relation of openness to work outcomes is visible but highly context
dependent. Here, we test if openness will affect work outcomes in two
ways: through job performance and through progression to higher levels.
In addition, we test if the relation of openness to work outcomes will be
moderated by job complexity and conscientiousness.
Openness and Job Complexity
Individuals high on openness are naturally suited to high complexity
jobs. It is seen thatindividuals that are more open will be dissatised in jobs
low in skill variety (De Jong et al., 2001).They also exhibit higher levels of
creativity when the ends and means to their task are ill-dened (George &
Zhou, 2001). High openness also indicates that an individual will be more
cued in to his environment and will be attentive to multiple inuences
while taking decisions (McElroy & Dowd, 2007). Not only will openness
positively affect work outcomes in a complex environment, but also
routine, mundane tasks can cause openness to inuence work outcomes
negatively. Open individuals will become dissatised and frustrated if
they nd their job mechanical and unchallenging. Thus, we predict that in
high complexity jobs, high openness will produce better work outcomes
whereas in low complexity jobs, high openness will adversely affect work
outcomes.

Great Lakes Herald Page 24Vol 7, No 2, September 2013
Hypothesis 1: Job complexity moderates the relationship between
openness and work outcomes, such that openness will be positively related
to work outcomes in high complexity jobs and negatively related to work
outcomes in low complexity jobs.
Moderating Effects of Conscientiousness on Openness
Conscientiousness is one personality factor that has been at the
center of personality-performance studies. A conscientious individual is
competent, well-organized, duty-bound, disciplined, and deliberative.
Conscientious people tend to be highly achievement focused and show
great perseverance, which explains the high signicance of this factor in
career success (Judge et al., 1999; Ng, Eby, Sorenson, &Feldman, 2005).
The traits relating to openness and those relating to conscientiousness
are seen to be quite opposite to each other. Conscientiousness talks about
impulse-control, need for structure, organization, and conformity while
openness describes risk-taking, low dogmatism, unstructured thinking,
and comfort with ambiguity. We also see that in several contexts, openness
and conscientiousness produce opposite impacts (Le Pine, Colquitt,
&Erez, 2000; George & Zhou, 2001). It is possible that in the presence of
conscientiousness, the inuence of openness on work outcomes is reduced.
This type of compensatory interaction hasbeen seen betweenother factors
affecting performance(Coté& Miners, 2006; Burke & Witt, 2002; Witt,
2002).
Thus we would like to explore here whether the presence of
conscientiousness is one of the factors that reduce the inuence of
openness on work outcomes. In addition, we would like to examine if
conscientiousness can compensate for a lack of openness and if it does, to
what extent. Here,we predict that the effect of openness on work outcomes
will be affected adversely by conscientiousness. Conscientiousness will
thus compensate for the lack of openness in the work outcomes of an
individual.
Hypothesis 2: Conscientiousness moderates the relationship
between openness and work outcomes such that openness will be positively
related to work outcomes when the individual is low on conscientiousness
and openness will be negatively related to work outcomes when the
individual is high on conscientiousness.

Page 25Great Lakes Herald Vol 7, No 2, September 2013
METHOD
Participants
One hundred and fty participants took part in the study. All
the participants were Indians. The participants were employees of a
multinational medical transcription company. All of the participants were
of executive level or above. Fifty two percent of the sample population
was female. Seventy-six percent of the sample was graduates, 19% was
postgraduates, 5% was diploma holders, and one participant was high
school pass. The age group was from 20 to 42 years. Eighty four percent
of the participants were under 30 years old and 46% of the participants
were under the age of 25. All the participants of the study had completed
one year in the company.
Procedure
The items that were used for the six facets of openness to experience
were taken from the IPIP scales (Goldberg, 1999). There were ten items
for each of the facets, both positively and negatively keyed. Ten items are
used to measure each of the six facets of ideas, actions, values, fantasy,
aesthetics, and values thus forming 60 items. One of the items measuring
values was missed out while preparing the questionnaire. Thus, 59 items
were used in the questionnaire. Three hundred questionnaires were
distributed to the employees.The supervisors were directed to collect the
completed forms within two days. As the employees were not allowed to
complete the questionnaires on the work oor due to security reasons, they
were directed to do so at home. One hundred and fty four questionnaires
were returned and were posted back. Among the questionnaires returned,
two did not have an ID number and we discarded them. The performance
data for two of the participants were not obtained and their questionnaires
werediscarded.
In the rst hypothesis, since job complexity was taken as the
moderator variable and job complexity is directly related to job level, work
outcomes were measured through performance scores alone. In the second
hypothesis, where the moderator variable was conscientiousness, both
performance and job progression were used to measure work outcomes.

Great Lakes Herald Page 26Vol 7, No 2, September 2013
Measures
Standardized performance scores.The standardized score for
individual employees foreach month was calculated using the standard
deviation and mean of the percentage target achievement of all the
participants in each designation. The average of this score across twelve
months gave the average standardized performance score for each
employee. The maximum standardized score was also taken.
Job progression. The level of job occupied in the hierarchy was
taken as the measure of job progression. A new joinee always started at
the lowest level of medical transcriptionist before progressing to medical
editor and then quality assurance specialist.
Openness.All the six facets of openness were combined together to
nd an overall score for openness.The three facets of openness to fantasy,
aesthetics, and feelings were combined together as openness to internal
experience (Grifn &Hesketh, 2004).The three facets of openness to
values, ideas, and actions were combined together to form openness to
external experience (Grifn &Hesketh, 2004).
Job complexity data.The job descriptions for the three jobs were
obtained from the organization. The descriptions for the three jobs were
also checked from O*Net (http://online.onetcenter.org/nd/descriptor/
browse). Using these two sources, a more comprehensive job description
for each of the three jobs was developed which was then used for measuring
the relative job complexities. The job descriptions were given to ten nal-
year students specializing in human resources management at a premier
institute in India and they were asked to rate each job description on a
scale of 1 to 4 on the following parameters: responsibility, complexity of
task, independence, opportunities for creativity, self-development, ability
to see the product of one’s work, control over the work of others (Lopata,
Norr, Barnewolt& Miller, 1985). These parameters were then checked for
reliability (Cronbach’s alpha =0.953) and then averaged to nd an overall
score for job complexity.
RESULTS
The jobs were categorized according to the job complexity ratings
obtained from ten independent raters. The reliability of the ratings was
checked and the Cronbach’s alpha was found to be 0.95. The medical

Page 27Great Lakes Herald Vol 7, No 2, September 2013
transcriptionist obtained a job complexity score of 2.04, the medical editor
obtained a job complexity score of 2.67, and the quality assurance specialist
obtained a job complexity score of 3.09. The complexity scores strongly
correlated with the respective positions of the jobs in the hierarchy. The
conscientiousness scale was found to have a Cronbach’s alpha value of
0.53.
Reliability was calculated for each of the facets, openness to
internal experience (formed by the facets fantasy, aesthetics, and feelings),
and openness to external experience (formed by ideas, actions and values)
and overall openness. Since the initial reliabilities were very low, some of
the items had to be dropped from each set. In total, there were 23 items
in openness to internal experience scale with a Cronbach’s alpha value of
0.61 and 15 items inopenness to external experience scale with Cronbach’s
alpha value 0.80. The complete openness scale had Cronbach’s alpha value
of 0.83
The performance data for each month was standardized and the
average for 12 months was taken as average standardized performance or
average performance. The highest out of the 12 months’ score was taken as
the maximum standardized performance or maximum performance. This
was done in order to nd the true relative performance. The performance
of the employee was based on the target achieved. Given the exploratory
nature of this study and the low sample size, correlation analysis has been
used here to validate the hypotheses. Also, since there was no strong
literature available on how openness facets differ between men and women,
no hypothesis was formed for this. Nevertheless, we have examined the
differences in the inuence of openness on work outcomes for men and
women separately.
In the rst hypothesis, it was predicted that openness would cause
better performance in high complexity jobs than in low complexity jobs.
We found adequate support for this as Job 2 showed a signicant negative
relationship of openness to peak performance (r = -0.49, p = 0.00) and
Job 3 showed signicant positive relationship of openness to maximum
performance (r = 0.50, p = 0.04). The results were echoed in the relationship
with average performance too with Job 2 showing a correlation of r =
-.44, and p =.02 and Job 3 showing a correlation of r = .45, p = .08. An
interesting nding here is that the effect of both internal openness and
openness to external experience changed from negative to positive as the
job complexity increased.

Great Lakes Herald Page 28Vol 7, No 2, September 2013
Variables AvgStand MaxStand
Grade 1 .06 .07
Grade 2 -.44*-.49**
Grade 3 .45 .50*
Table 1- Correlation of Openness with Job Performance across Job Levels
Note:Avgstand = Average standardized performance; Maxstand =
Maximum standardized performance; N=105
* p< .05. ** p< .01.
Table 2- Means, Standard deviations and Correlations among Study
Variables for Employees with Low and High Conscientiousness
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Gender - - - .03 .14 .05 .11 .03 .07 .09
Age 25.72 3.53 -0.1 - .14 -.01 .06 .06 .01 -.11 -.12
EduQual - - .07 -.01 - -.21 .07 .05 .09 -.03 -.08
Designation - - -.28* -.08 -.16 --.19 -.29* -.02 -.17 -.20
Openness 3.70 0.38 -.05 .02 .12 .19 (.84) .94** .77** -.02 .01
Internal 3.83 0.43 -.03 .06 .11 .13 .95** (.61) .56** .02 .05
External 3.41 0.43 -.04 -.09 .10 .31** .80** .60** (.80) -.04 -.04
AvgStand 0.01 0.79 -.11 -.06 .04 .17 .06 .05 .07 - .94**
Maxstand 0.71 1.21 -.08 -.02 .04 .10 .05 .03 .04 .92** -

Page 29Great Lakes Herald Vol 7, No 2, September 2013
Note.The lower triangular matrix contains data for low
conscientiousness, the upper triangular matrix contains data for employees
with high conscientiousness, and coefcient alphas are in parenthesis
along the diagonal. N = 105. For Gender, Male = 1 and Female = 2;
Avgstand = Average standardized performance; Maxstand = Maximum
standardized performance; Internal = Openness to internal experience;
External = Openness to external experience; and EduQual = Educational
Qualication.
* p< .05. ** p< .01.
Hypothesis 2 was supported for job progression but not for
performance. The relationship of openness to job level was signicant and
positive at r =0.19, p=0.093 in the case of low conscientiousness and was
negative at r = -.19, p=0.114 in the case of high conscientiousness. Though
direction of the inuence was similar in the case of performance, the
relationship was not signicantwith the positive correlation at r = 0.06, p =
0.61 for low conscientiousness employees and the negative correlation of r
= 0.02, p = 0.88 for high conscientiousness employees. Thus, it can be see
that while high conscientiousness or high openness can act as a signicant
advantage, high openness accompanied by high conscientiousness will
negatively affect career growth.
DISCUSSION
This study examined the moderating effects of job complexity
and conscientiousness on the relationship between openness and work
outcomes -- dened by performance on the job and job progression. We
found that openness relates negatively to performance in the case of low
complexity jobs and positively in the case of high complexity jobs. We
also found that openness and conscientiousness show compensatory effects
in the case of progression to higher level jobs. There were also differences
found in the effect of openness on the work outcomes of men and women.
Openness in Less Complex and High Complex Jobs
It was seen that openness relates positively to performance in
high complexity jobs and negatively to performance in low complexity
jobs. Individuals who are more open should be placed in jobs that would

Great Lakes Herald Page 30Vol 7, No 2, September 2013
keep them challenged and give them enough autonomy. High openness
in individuals doing routine, mundane jobs will lead to job tension and
depression. An important nding is that contrary to other studies that
showed internal openness negatively affecting performance (Grifn and
Hesketh, 2004); we found openness to internal and external experience
as positively predicting performance in high complexity jobs and
both dimensions negatively predicted performance in low complexity
jobs. However, the facet of aesthetics, being the strongest predictor of
performance in Job 3 (r= .51, p=.03) may have skewed the overall impact
in favor of internal openness. In a job like quality assurance specialist of
medical documents, aesthetics plays an important role, since it requires
attention to the formatting and detailing of the document, and the other
facets of internal openness may not be equally relevant. This means that
it may not be wise to group the facets into two categories for all kinds of
jobs. Rather, the relevance of the facets should be analyzed in isolation in
relation to various job characteristics.
Openness and Job Progression
It was proved that conscientiousness moderates the relationship
between openness and job progression. In highly conscientious individuals,
openness has a negative inuence on job progression. This implies
that a data entry operator might have a fast job progress if he or she is
persevering and organized. However, a wide range of skills and a high
need for variety and creativity in such a job will offset the inuence of such
conscientious behavior reducing the progress. At the same time, we see that
in low conscientious individuals, openness positively predicts progress. As
explained earlier, a scientist who is lazy, unorganized, and open is likely to
show better progress than a scientist who is lazy, unorganized, and closed.
Thus, we see that conscientiousness can compensate for a lack of openness
and vice-versa in determining growth in career. The caveat is that this
relationship is dependent upon the nature of the job. The compensatory
inuence of openness on conscientiousness would be stronger in a high-
complexity rather than in a low-complexity job.
It is possible that though these two factors are of opposite nature,
both correspond to a high growth need or achievement motivation (De
Jong et al., 2001; Costa and McCrae, 1992). The root of the correspondence
is however different. Conscientious individuals achieve higher growth
because they are highly result oriented and motivated towards success.
Openness on the other hand is likely to correspond to higher growth as

Page 31Great Lakes Herald Vol 7, No 2, September 2013
it leads to greater autonomy and opportunities to increase the breadth of
skills.
Limitations
There are several limitations to this study. We looked at a small
sample size of 150 managers and the distribution was skewed across the
three jobs. Most of the participants were in the medical transcriptionist
jobs with only about 20 individuals each in the other two jobs. Since
this was a rst study of its nature and given the small size of the sample,
an exploratory approach was followed. We have used only correlation
analysis to validate the hypothesis. Yet another limitation of the study
was in the method of data collection. Data were not collected from the
individuals under supervision. Due to security issues, the questionnaires
could not be distributed on the work oor and were completed at home by
the participants.
The low reliability of the facet scales was another drawback of
the study. This can be attributed to the lack of understanding of the items
or in the misinterpretation of the meanings. For e.g., in the case of a facet
like values, as the perception in the Indian context is widely different from
that in the Western context, many of the items may have lacked validity
for the current sample. The items 2 and 4 of the facet values were “I tend
to vote for liberal/conservative candidates.” Such a measure may be more
relevant in two party systems like in the U.S. Most people in India will not
understand the difference between a liberal and a conservative candidate
because of the widely different political system. A more suitable item to
measure the openness in values would have been “I vote on caste/religious
basis.” The lack of understanding could also be one of the reasons for
the lack of reliability of the items. For e.g. certain items, like “creature
of habit” or “attached to conventional ways” may have been difcult for
the participantsto interpret. The performance ratings obtained showed only
the quantitative performance of the employees and not qualitative aspects
like leadership initiative, creativity, ability to work in a team, interpersonal
skills etc.
Implications for Practice
It is often seen that employees with high potential are not able to
perform at the expected level once they move into a bigger role. While
they might be highly efcient in completing a clearly dened task within a

Great Lakes Herald Page 32Vol 7, No 2, September 2013
prescribed period and set of standards, they may not be able towork under
unclear objectives, take tough decisions, and obtain a multidimensional
perspective to problems. This leads to not only ineffectiveness but also
demotivation of the employee. Hence, the mapping of employees to
responsibilities should take into careful consideration the environment of
work and the ability of the individual to cope with the environment.
As most jobs today are becoming increasingly complex in nature, it
is proposed that openness should be considered as an important criterion in
selecting employees. Openness should be used as a selection criterion not
only for higher-level jobs but also for any role that entail complexity in task
or context. At the same time, it is recommended that caution be exercised
while using openness as a selection or performance criteria. Openness
should not be equated with traits like conscientiousness that can be seen
as being more relevant for almost all jobs. While conscientiousness might
be a desirable trait irrespective of the details of job, opennesswill create
adverse effects in the wrong job.
On the other, we see here that opennesscan compensate for
conscientiousness in determining progress. An employee who lacks
the high level of efciency or productivity might still be preferred for
a promotion because he can work in high complexity tasks and handle
ambiguous situations effectively. This compensatory inuence is an
interesting conclusion as it proposes that openness can act as a substitute
for conscientiousness in selecting employees to certain jobs. However,
the nature of such jobs should be carefully appraised. While a creative
director may require higher openness, an accountant might require higher
conscientiousness and a HR manager will require a moderation of both
attributes. Overall, it is proposed that as the nature and content of jobs
become more and more dynamic, the traditionally valued traits like
conscientiousness may be replaced by other characteristics like openness
(Le Pine et al., 2000; George & Zhou, 2001).
Implications for Future Research
Openness may not have yet emerged as a fundamental predictor in
managerial success. However, in the current economic, social, and political
contexts of organizations, there is a need to take a relook at how this factor
manifests in individuals. The openness factor has to be carefully studied in
a context sensitive manner. Openness, being one of the personality factors
covering the greatest breadth, offers intriguing areas for future studies.

Page 33Great Lakes Herald Vol 7, No 2, September 2013
For example, how artistic/ aesthetic interests can interact with managerial
qualities, whether a vast experiential knowledge has an advantage over
deeper domain knowledge in a leadership context, can creativity be a
positive attribute irrespective of the nature of the occupation, etc. are some
of the questions that we can seek to answer.
In this study, only three jobs were examined in detail. These were
a lot similar in context and content. It is proposed that future research on
openness should focus on jobs across sectors and across the hierarchy.
In addition, more complete measurement criteria of performance should
be considered while evaluating work outcomes. There should be a more
careful and detailed examination of the work context in order to discriminate
the conditions in which each of the Big Five factors is likely to have the
greatest effect.
As most work contexts of today are becoming increasingly
dynamic, job complexity should be considered as an important work
characteristic. The interaction of job complexity with other personality
factors can also give interesting results. The compensatory inuences
among the Big Five should be studied more widely. Another important
area for future research is how the openness facets inuence performance
in men and women.
Conclusion
Through this study, it has been shown that openness can signicantly
affect work outcomes in many ways. The fact that the relationship between
openness and performance is context dependent is highlighted. Openness
tends to be more signicant in its inuence, when the job context gives
enough autonomy, demands unconventional thinking, and values
individual freedom. The interaction of openness with personality was also
explored here through the factor of conscientiousness. It was seen that
there is signicant variation in the inuence of openness by the interaction
of conscientiousness factor. We conclude that the Big Five factor of
openness to experience, which has been rather controversial, is a dynamic
and rich personality trait that contains much to be explored. Its inuences
on behavior, abilities, and attitude are poised to be an important area of
future study.

Great Lakes Herald Page 34Vol 7, No 2, September 2013
REFERENCES
Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1991). The big ve personality dimensions
and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44.
Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and
performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we
know and where do we go next? Personality and Performance, 9,
(1/2).
Bing, M. N., &Lounsbury, J. W. (2000).Openness and job performance
in U.S.-based Japanese manufacturing companies. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 14(3), 515-522.
Burke, L. A., & Witt, L. A. (2002).Moderators to openness to experience-
performance relationship.Journal of Managerial Psychology,
17(8).
Cote´, S., & Miners, C. T. H. (2006). Emotional intelligence, cognitive
intelligence and job performance.Administrative Science Quarterly,
51, 1-28.
Costa, P., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Description of NEO personality
inventory (NEO-PI-R) facet scales. Appendix D. Revised NEO
personality inventory and the NEO ve factor inventory professional
manual, (pp 16-18).
De Jong, R.D., 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).
Eysenck, H.J. (1962). Know your own IQ. Penguin Books.
Eysenck, H. J., &Eysenck, M. W. (1985).Personality and Individual
Differences- A Natural Science Approach.Plenum Press.
Fiske, D.W. (1994). Two cheers for big ve. Psychological Inquiry, 5(2),
123-124.
George, J.M., & Zhou, J. (2001).When openness to experience and
conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interactional
approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 513-524.

Page 35Great Lakes Herald Vol 7, No 2, September 2013
Goldberg, L.R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits.
American Psychologist, 48.
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality
inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several ve-factor
models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.),
Personality Psychology in Europe, Vol. 7 (pp. 7-28). Tilburg, the
Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
Grifn, B. & Hesketh, B. (2004). Why openness to experience is not a good
predictor of job performance.International Journal of Selection
and Assessment, 12 (3).
Hamilton, E.E. (1988). The facilitation of organizational change: An
empirical study of factors predicting change agents’ effectiveness.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 24; 37.
Judge, T.A., Cable, D.M., Boudreau, J.W., &BretzJr, R.D. (1994).An
empirical investigation of the predictors of executive career
success.Working Paper Series.Centre for Advanced Human
Resources Studies.94-08.
Judge, T.A., Higgins, C.A., Thoresen, C.J., &Barrick, M.R. (1999).The big
ve personality traits, general mental ability, and career success
across the life span.Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 621-652.
Kickul, J., & Neuman, G. (2000). Emergent leadership behaviors: The
function of personality and cognitive ability in determining
teamwork performance and Ksas. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 15(1), 27-51.
Le Pine, J.A., Colquitt, J.A., &Erez, A. (2000).Adaptability to changing task
contexts: Effects of general cognitive ability, conscientiousness,
and openness to experience. Personnel Psychology, 53, 563-593.
Lopata, H.Z., Norr, K. F., Barnewolt, D., & Miller, C.A. (1985). Job
complexity as perceived by workers and experts. Work and
Occupations, 12, 395.
McCrae, R. R (1992).Openness to experience as a basic dimension of
personality. Paper presented at the annual convention of American
Psychological Association. Washington D.C.

Great Lakes Herald Page 36Vol 7, No 2, September 2013
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1991).An introduction to ve-factor model
and its applications.Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175-215a.
McElroy, T., & Dowd, E. (2007). Susceptibility to anchoring effects: How
openness-to-experience inuences responses to anchoring cues.
Judgment and Decision Making, 2(1), 48–53.
Mount, M.K., Barrick, M.R., & Stewart, G.L. (1998). Five-factor model
of personality and performance in jobs involving interpersonal
interactions.Human Performance, 11(2/3), 145-165.
Ng, T.W.H., Eby, L.T., Sorenson, K.L., & Feldman, D.C. (2005). Predictors
of objective and subjective career success: A meta-analysis.
Personnel Psychology, 58,367-408.
Oakes, D.W., Ferris, G.R., Martocchio, J.J., Buckley, M.R., & Broach,
D. (2001). Cognitive ability and personality predictors of training
program skill acquisition and job performance. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 15(4), 523-548.
Oh, In-Sue, & Berry, C.M. (2009). The ve-factor model of personality
and managerial performance: Validity gains through the use of 360
degree performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6),
1498-1513.
Seibert, S.E., Kraimer, M.L., &Liden, R.C. (2001).A social capital theory
of success.Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 219-237.
Shane, S. (1995). Uncertainty Avoidance and the Preference for Innovation
Championing Roles.Journal of International Business Studies,
26(1), 47-68.
Turban, D.B., & Dougherty, T.W. (1994). Role of protégé personality
in receipt of mentoring and career success. The Academy of
Management Journal, 37 (3), 688-702.
Witt, L. A. (2002). The interactive effects of extraversion and
conscientiousness on performance.Journal of Management, 28(6),
835-851.