Content uploaded by André Luiz Mendes Athayde
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by André Luiz Mendes Athayde on Feb 08, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Science Studies | ANDRÉ ATHAYDE | 14
VOLUME 6 ISSUE 1 ISBN: 978-1-913016-68-5 (Online) ISSN: 2397-6934 (Online) www.flepublications.com
JP2. DT10-7643
GUIDANCE SOURCES AT WORK: LET’S LOOK INSIDE US?
ANDRÉ LUIZ MENDES ATHAYDE
1
AND CLAUDIO VAZ TORRES
2
ABSTRACT
The present article aims at proposing a new theoretical model of the internal antecedents of the
use of guidance sources at work by employees while dealing with different events. The in-
depth theoretical review enabled the proposition of a model according to which personality
traits and personal values influence each other, and both might influence the employees’ use
of guidance sources at work. A future test of the theoretical model may show administrators
which personal characteristics are significantly related to which guidance sources used at work.
The novel contribution of the model, in comparison to relevant prior studies, is to consider
personal values and personality traits simultaneously as predictors of the use of sources of
guidance at work. Moreover, it is the first research to study the possible internal antecedents of
the use of guidance sources at work.
Key Words: Organizational behavior, Personality psychology, Social psychology.
INTRODUCING THE THEORETICAL GAP
Organization members seek information from different sources in order to interpret and
respond to the sequence of events they experience at work. The sources of information on
which organization members rely to handle different events at work are known in the literature
as ‘Sources of Guidance (SOGs)’ (Peterson et al., 1990). However, what are those work events
handled by the organization member? Work events include anything that triggers an
organization member’s conscious attention (Smith et al., 2002). The idea of event is frequently
found in organization theories, which view social processes as episodes that can be given many
meanings (Whitehead, 1929; Russel, 1961; Kahn et al., 1964; Mintzberg, 1973; March and
Olsen, 1976; Martinko and Gardner, 1984). So, organizations provide many SOGs that
members can use to interpret the events they experience and to select their actions (Smircich
and Morgan, 1982; Smith and Peterson, 1988).
Classical contingency leadership models (e.g., House, 1971; Sheridan et al., 1984)
consider that some work tasks and work settings are more structured than others, which means
that leaders will act according to how structured a task or setting is. Peterson et al. (1990),
however, proposes something different. According to their alternative hypothesis, the
organization member’s work varies over time, according to the event he/she is handling. So,
this means that his behavior must change over the course of a day or week to correspond with
changes in the events. Peterson et al. (1990) highlight that such variability in behavior in
response to changing situations/events is precisely what is found in work organizations. This
hypothesis came to be known as the ‘event-based contingency hypothesis’, the background of
this article.
Many notions similar to the idea of event management by Peterson et al. (1990) have
been identified in the organizational literature. Galbraith (1973), for instance, proposed that
organizations differing in the complexity and uncertainty of work will place different degrees
of emphasis on rules and procedures, hierarchy, and goal setting. However, his proposal
assumed absolute uniformity in particular events or circumstances that occur within structures.
1
Ph.D. Student, School of Economy, Administration, and Accounting (FACE), University of Brasília (UnB),
Brazil, andreluizathayde@outlook.com
2
Professor, School of Economy, Administration, and Accounting (FACE), University of Brasília (UnB), Brazil,
claudio.v.torres@gmail.com
International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Science Studies| 15
© 2020 The Author | IJISSS 2020 © 2020 FLE Learning
Even though there is strong evidence in the literature that an individual’s psychological
profile might influence the use of SOGs to handle work events, its possible internal antecedents
have never been deeply investigated. Although previous studies have been conducted to
investigate the influence of personality on values (Bilsky and Schwartz, 1994; Furnham, 1984),
the study of the simultaneous effect of both on the use of guidance sources at work still
constitutes a theoretical gap. So, in this scenario, the present article aims at proposing a
theoretical model of the internal antecedents of the use of guidance sources at work by
employees while dealing with different events.
Besides the theoretical gap highlighted above, what else makes it worth studying the
internal antecedents of the use of guidance sources at work? In practice, why does this subject
deserve to be more deeply investigated? Since the use of guidance sources at work constitutes
a behavior and might influence the ultimate performance of the employee, this has implications
for organizational administrators, decision-makers, and psychologists. The development of
human resources policies could benefit from knowledge about the influence of personal values
and personality traits on the use of guidance sources, especially when it comes to recruiting
and selecting processes.
The objective of investigating the internal antecedents of the use of guidance sources at
work naturally leads us to one specific field: Personality Psychology. Personality Psychology
is the area of Psychology that has most profoundly and broadly influenced Organizational
Behavior, which is defined as the field concerned with attitudes (e.g., satisfaction and
commitment), decision-making, interpersonal processes, and individual and group behavior in
work settings (e.g., SOGs) (Judge et al., 2008). Personality traits and other personal
differences, of course, have a long history in Organizational Behavior. Barrick and Mount
(2005, p. 361) state: “Personality traits do matter at work,” and indeed, the data from scientific
research seem to support their conclusion (Hogan, 2004).
The relationship between personality traits and personal values represents an important
topic at the intersection of Personality and Social Psychology. Both personal values and
personality traits are broad categories of individual differences relevant to the study of persons
and are, by definition, assumed to be cross-situationally and cross-temporally consistent
(Dollinger et al., 1996). Roccas et al. (2002) postulates that personal values and personality
traits mutually influence each other. However, the causal direction remains unclear (Silfver et
al., 2008; Pohling et al., 2016).
So, the novel contribution of the theoretical model proposed in this study, therefore, in
comparison to relevant prior studies, is to consider personal values and personality traits
simultaneously as predictors of the use of guidance sources at work, something that has never
been done before. Besides, it is essential to highlight that this theoretical discussion is
fundamental, so that it can be used in future primary empirical research.
RATIONALE OF THE PROPOSED THEORETICAL MODEL
The present section will explore six different reasons that comprise the foundation upon which
we proposed the theoretical model.
The importance of studying sources of guidance
First, it is possible to identify the relevance of the present study based on its professional and
academic relevance regarding the dependent variable (SOGs). From a professional perspective,
the future test of the proposed theoretical model may show managers and organizational
psychologists which individual characteristics are related to which guidance sources used at
work. This relation between individual characteristics and SOGs could be strategic information
when it comes to recruitment and selection processes, since the future results will show
International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Science Studies | ANDRÉ ATHAYDE | 16
VOLUME 6 ISSUE 1 ISBN: 978-1-913016-68-5 (Online) ISSN: 2397-6934 (Online) www.flepublications.com
organizational decision-makers the role of personal values and personality traits on the use of
desired guidance sources.
Moreover, from an academic perspective, this paper proposes a model that may
contribute to deepen the study on SOGs and to better understand employees’ behavior at work,
and how the predictor variables complement each other.
Theoretical gap
The study of personal values has already been applied to many contexts and levels, such as
cultural values (Hofstede, 1980; Triandis et al., 1988), work values (Tamayo and Porto, 2005),
and organizational values (Borges and Tamayo, 2001). Both constructs (personal values and
personality traits) have already been researched together, predicting many different attitudes
and behaviors, but they have never been considered together to explain the use of guidance
sources at work.
Through a literature review of the most important empirical studies involving sources of
guidance in the last 30 years, it was possible to identify two gaps: 1) the lack of a significant
amount of research about SOGs, as we identified only six relevant empirical studies about this
variable. One of them discussed the use of SOGs isolatedly (Peterson et al., 1990), and the
other ones its relationship with other variables (Smith et al., 1994, Smith et al., 2002, Smith
and Peterson, 2005; Peterson et al., 2010; Smith et al., 2011). It is important to highlight that
the study of Peterson et al. (2016), a more recent one, only updated the data collection
instrument, Managerial Decisions Questionnaire Global (Mdq-GL), revising the number of
frequent organizational events from eight to six, omitting two events that had shown some
method problems. The last published empirical study about SOGs was performed more than
seven years ago (Smith et al., 2011). Besides, it was possible to identify 2) the absence of
research that evaluates specifically the individual antecedents of the use of SOGs at work, such
as personal values and personality traits. So, in order to help fill these gaps, the present article
analyses the individual antecedents of the use of SOGs at work.
Both personal values and personality traits might influence attitudes and behavior
Rokeach (1968) affirms that beliefs, attitudes, and values are interconnected, comprising an
integrated cognitive system. This interconnection means that a change in any part of this system
will affect its other parts, which will eventually change behavior. This is one of the reasons
why this article considers that there is a relationship between personal values and the use of
SOGs (behavior) at work. They have not been chosen randomly.
This article hypothesizes that the inclination for some personal values or the prevalence
of a particular personality trait can determine which of the guidance sources the employee will
privilege when dealing with work events. People can explain their choices, attitudes, and
behavior by referring to their traits (‘I helped her because I am an agreeable person’) and/or
their values (‘I think it is important to help’) (Roccas and Sagiv, 2009). Literature has
extensively demonstrated the connection between values and emotions, preferences, attitudes,
and beliefs (Roccas and Sagiv, 2009; Feather, 1999). Many authors have highlighted that
individuals often seek out, create, evoke, or are selected into experiences that are compatible
and correlated with their personality (Caspi and Bem, 1990; Roberts, 2007; Scarr and
Mccartney, 1983; Snyder and Ickes, 1985; Wille and de Fruyt, 2014).
Judge et al. (2008) have successfully proved the effects of the Big Five Model in many
work outcomes, such as job performance, work motivation, job attitudes, leadership, among
others. It is one more reason to expect that personality traits affect the use of guidance sources
at work, since these can be considered job behaviors (Smith et al., 2002). Whether this effect
is direct or indirect, is still something to be investigated and could be shown by the test of the
theoretical model proposed here.
International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Science Studies| 17
© 2020 The Author | IJISSS 2020 © 2020 FLE Learning
Personal values and personality traits complement each other
Although personal values and personality traits are both trans-situational and relatively stable
structures of individuals, which makes them variables close to each other (individual level),
they differ from each other in some aspects. Accumulating evidence shows that personality
traits are primarily endogenous characteristics, while personal values are learned adaptations
strongly influenced by the environment (Olver and Mooradian, 2003).
First, while personal values are directly related to the content of the goals of individuals,
personality traits relate to the way the individual seeks to achieve these goals. As presented by
Schwartz (1994), personal values are conflicting; that is, when specific values are prioritized,
others are deprecated. On the other hand, personality traits do not conflict with each other.
While personality traits are relatively inborn dispositions (Olver and Mooradian, 2003),
personal values are learned and reflect the adaptation of an individual’s need to what is
considered acceptable in society (Rokeach, 1972).
Personality traits are “dimensions of individual differences in tendencies to show
consistent patterns of thoughts, feelings, and actions” (McCrae and Costa, 1990, p. 23).
Therefore, personality traits are enduring dispositions. On the other hand, personal values are
enduring goals. Personality traits describe ‘what people are like’ rather than the intentions
behind their behavior. Personal values refer to ‘what people consider important,’ the goals they
wish to pursue. Personality traits vary in the frequency and intensity of their occurrence,
whereas personal values vary in their importance as guiding principles (ranging from at least
minimally to supremely important). People believe their values are desirable, at least to a
significant reference group, whereas traits may be positive or negative.
Despite these differences, Parks and Guay (2009) point out that the two constructs also
have many similarities, and both impact the individual’s motivation. Although personality
traits and personal values are conceptually distinct, they are empirically related (Haslam et al.,
2009).
For those reasons, we believe that including the two constructs in this model can broaden
the understanding of what leads the individual to choose this or that guidance source, by
differentiating the impact of each construct separately and to investigate the joint impact of
these constructs.
Personal values and personality traits might influence each other
Personal values may affect personality traits because, other things being equal, individuals try
to behave in ways consistent with their values (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1996). Conversely,
personality traits may affect personal values too, since individuals who consistently present a
behavioral trait are likely to increase the degree to which they value the goals that trait serves.
Values allow them to justify their behavior. Self-perception theory (Bem, 1972) suggests that
personality traits influence personal values because people infer what is important to them from
their consistent (trait-expressive) behavior. Three relevant studies have already examined
relations between personal values and the Five-Factor Model (Dollinger et al., 1996; Luk and
Bond, 1993; Roccas et al., 2002).
Personal values and personality traits are relatively stable
Experience, family dynamics, culture, work, and educational experiences mold an individual’s
personality. However, many pieces of evidence suggest that a great part of personality
predispositions, being present even since the individual’s first years, are stable over his life
(Caspi et al., 2005; Costa and McCrae, 1992; Gosling et al., 2003).
Even though some studies have shown slight value changes (e.g., Verkasalo et al., 2006),
it has been detected that personal values tend to return to their original baseline level over time
after these changes. Besides, personality traits can be considered as relatively stable over time.
International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Science Studies | ANDRÉ ATHAYDE | 18
VOLUME 6 ISSUE 1 ISBN: 978-1-913016-68-5 (Online) ISSN: 2397-6934 (Online) www.flepublications.com
Even the few authors that claim changes in personality traits acknowledge that they typically
occur at a modest rate and over long time intervals (Roberts et al., 2003; McCrae and
Terracciano, 2005; Roberts and Wood, 2006; Wille and de Fruyt, 2014).
According to Schwartz and Bardi (2001), personal values and personality traits are trans-
situational and relatively stable structures that precede and influence attitudes and behaviors.
We considered this strong evidence for the proposed model.
Having these six rationale pillars in mind, we will illustrate the theoretical model in the
following section.
A NEW THEORETICAL MODEL
Even though we have already presented the six pillars of the rationale, let us review three
essential references that summarize the reason behind the arrows in the illustration of the model
(Figure 1):
1 – Judge et al. (2008) have successfully proved the effects of personality traits in many
work outcomes, such as attitudes and behaviors (this leads us to accept the hypothesis that
personality traits might influence the use of guidance sources, since the last represent
behaviors: personality traits → SOGs);
2 – Literature has extensively demonstrated the connection between personal values,
attitudes and behaviors (Roccas and Sagiv, 2009; Feather, 1999) (this leads us to accept that
personal values might influence the use of guidance sources, since the last represent behaviors:
personal values → SOGs);
3 – Roccas et al. (2002) postulated that personal values and personality traits mutually
influence each other (personal values → personality traits).
This theoretical foundation, summarized above, enables us to propose a model in which
personality traits and personal values influence each other, and both might influence
employees’ use of guidance sources at work (behaviors): Figure 1.
The fact that the three variables considered in the present theoretical model are trans-
situational allows it to be tested in the future through cross-sectional research.
Figure 1. Proposed theoretical model
Source: Prepared by the authors
AN APPLICATION OF THE THEORETICAL MODEL
The most recent cross-cultural study on SOGs (Smith et al., 2011) evidenced significant
unhypothesized relationships between variables that may or may not have been coincidental,
so what we know about SOGs is incomplete. Smith et al. (2011) noted that managers perceive
a reliance on established rules and procedures and on one’s own experience to be an effective
means of handling work events across all cultures.
Results indicated counterintuitive individual-level effects. Reliance on oneself was
weaker in collectivist countries, as the authors had hypothesized. Nevertheless, the results
further indicated the relationships between reliance on formal rules, and both power distance
International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Science Studies| 19
© 2020 The Author | IJISSS 2020 © 2020 FLE Learning
and uncertainty avoidance were the reverse of what the authors had hypothesized for either the
Hofstede measure of the two dimensions or the GLOBE measure. People in societies with
larger levels of power distance were less likely to rely on formal rules (using the GLOBE
measure), rather than the reverse. Using the Hofstede measure, the relationship was not
significant. People in societies with higher levels of uncertainty avoidance were also less likely
to rely on formal rules (using the Hofstede measure). Using the GLOBE measure, the
relationship was not significant. Both the GLOBE and Hofstede studies have indicated that
power distance corresponds to the reliance on persons in authority, while uncertainty avoidance
corresponds to a reliance on impersonal rules. However, Hofstede’s (2001) uncertainty
avoidance measure differs from the GLOBE measure in that it focuses less on routinization
and more on anxiety and either increased risk-taking or increased caution.
Accordingly, to develop a better understanding of the SOGs that people draw on when
making sense of work events, one should further examine personal values that correspond to
power distance and uncertainty avoidance. Values corresponding to power distance include
hierarchy and authority. Those corresponding to uncertainty avoidance include risk-taking,
conservation, openness to change, and order. Peterson (2017) distinguished between order and
chaos, suggesting that people have a desire to maintain order in their lives and to eliminate
chaos. However, what people know they ought to do (e.g., seek order) may vary from what
they usually do (c.f., House et al., 2004), so people may be on a continuum of order and chaos.
Schwartz (1992; 1994) identified the second-order value domains of conservation vs. openness
to change and lower-level values of conformity, security, tradition, and hierarchy.
Personality traits may further correspond to uncertainty avoidance. For example, order is
a facet of the conscientiousness domain, and openness to experience is a personality domain of
the Five-Factor Model of Personality (Costa and McCrae, 1992).
Taken together, we propose the relationships between the aforementioned personality
traits, personal values, and SOGs may be better understood using our proposed theoretical
model. The model suggests that these personal values and personality traits are antecedents in
a model explaining the SOGs people use to handle work events.
CONCLUSION
The present paper aimed at discussing profoundly the internal antecedents of a very important
work-related variable known as ‘sources of guidance’ and their probable relationships. As
expected, discussing work behavior would naturally involve different knowledge fields, which,
in this case, were Organizational Behavior, Personality Psychology, and Social Psychology.
Based on strong literature evidence from those fields, the present article achieved successfully
its main objective: to culminate in proposing a theoretical model that can be tested in future
primary empirical studies, shedding light on a theoretical gap about the individual antecedents
of SOGs.
By discussing the relationship between three variables that have never been analyzed
together, the present article has contributed to the advancement of the theory of three main
knowledge fields to which it is related. Even though the study was limited to the construction
of a theoretical model and to answering theoretical secondary questions, it elaborated a robust
ground upon which the internal antecedents of guidance sources can be tested in future primary
empirical research for the first time.
REFERENCES
Barrick, M. R., and Mount, M. K. (2005) Yes, personality matters: Moving on to more
important matters. Human Performance, 18, 359–372.
Bem, D. J. (1972) Self-perception theory. In: L. Berkowitz (ed.) Advances in experimental
social psychology. New York: Academic Press, 1–62.
International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Science Studies | ANDRÉ ATHAYDE | 20
VOLUME 6 ISSUE 1 ISBN: 978-1-913016-68-5 (Online) ISSN: 2397-6934 (Online) www.flepublications.com
Bilsky, W. and Schwartz, S. H. (1994) Values and personality. European Journal of
Personality, 8(3), 163–181.
Borges, L. and Tamayo, A. (2001) A estrutura cognitiva do significado do trabalho. Psicologia
(Florianopolis), 1(2), 11–44.
Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W. and Shiner, R. L. (2005) Personality development: stability and
change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 453–484.
Caspi, A. and Bem, D. J. (1990) Personality continuity and change across the life course. In:
Pervin, L. A. (ed.). Handbook of personality: Theory and research, New York: Guildford
Press, 549–575.
Costa Jr, P. T., and McCrae, R. R. (1992) Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and
Individual Differences, 13(6), 653–665.
Dollinger, S. J., Leong, F. T. L. and Ulicni, S. K. (1996) On traits and values: With special
reference to Openness to Experience. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 23–41.
Feather, N. T. (1999) Values, Achievement, and Justice: Studies in the Psychology of
Deservingness. New York: Kluwer Academic ⁄ Plenum.
Furnham, A. (1984). Personality and values. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 483–
485.
Galbraith, J. (1973). Designing complex organizations, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J. and Swann Jr, W. B. (2003) A very brief measure of the Big-
Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528.
Haslam, N., Whelan, J. and Bastian, B. (2009) Big Five Traits Mediate Associations between
Values and Subjective Well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(1), 40–
42.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and
organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hogan, R. (2004) Personality psychology for organizational researchers. In: Schneider, B.,
Smith, D. B. (eds.). Personality and Organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 3–21.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W. and Gupta, V. (2004) Culture,
leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA
Sage.
House, R. J. (1971) A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 16, 321–338.
Judge, T. A., Klinger, R., Simon, L. S. and Yang, I. W. F. (2008) The contributions of
personality to organizational behavior and psychology: findings, criticisms, and future
research directions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(5), 1982–2000.
Kahn, R. L. et al. (1964) Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New
York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Luk, C. L., and Bond, M. H. (1993) Personality variation and values endorsement in Chinese
university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 429–437.
March, J. G., and Olsen, J. P. (1976) Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Oslo, Norway:
Universitetsforlagt.
Martinko, M. J. and Gardner, W. L. (1984) The observation of high-performing educational
managers: Methodological issues and managerial implications. In: Hunt, J. G., Hosking,
D. M., Schriesheim, C. A., Stewart, R. (eds.). Leaders and managers. New York, NY:
Pergamon Press, 142–162.
McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A. and 78 members of Culture Personality Traits Project (2005)
Universal features of personality traits from the observer’s perspective: Data from 50
cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 547–561.
International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Science Studies| 21
© 2020 The Author | IJISSS 2020 © 2020 FLE Learning
McCrae, R. R. and Costa Jr, P. T. (1990) Personality in adulthood. New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
Mintzberg, H. (1973) The nature of managerial work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Olver, J. M. and Mooradian, T. A. (2003) Personality traits and personal values: A conceptual
and empirical integration. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 109–125.
Peterson, J. B. (2017) 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos. Toronto, CA: Random House.
Peterson, M. F., Barreto, T. S. and Smith, P. B. (2016) Revised sources of guidance measures:
Six events and demographic controls. In: Roland-Lévy, C., Denoux, P., Voyer, B., Boski,
P., Gabrenya Ju, W. K. (eds.). Unity, diversity, and culture: Research and Scholarship
Selected from the 22nd Congress of the International Association for Cross-Cultural
Psychology. Melbourne, FL: International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology,
213–217.
Peterson, M. F., et al. (2010) Social Structures and Personal Values that Predict E-mail Use:
An International Comparative Structure. Journal of Global Information Management,
18(2), 57–84.
Peterson, M. F., Smith, P. B., Bond, M. H. and Misumi, J. (1990) Personal Reliance on Event-
Management Processes in Four Countries. Group & Organization Studies, 15(1), 75–91.
Pohling, R., Bzdok, D., Eigenstetter, M., Stumpf, S. and Strobel, A. (2016) What is ethical
competence? The role of empathy, personal values, and the Five-Factor Model of
personality in ethical decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 137, 449–474.
Roberts, B. W. (2007) Contextualizing personality psychology. Journal of Personality, 5,
1071–1082.
Roberts, B. W., and Wood, D. (2006) Personality development in the context of the neo-
socioanalytic model of personality. In: Mroczek, D. K., Little, T. D. (eds.). Handbook of
personality development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 11–39.
Roberts, B. W., Robins, R. W., Caspi, A. and Trzesniewski, K. H. (2003) Personality trait
development in adulthood. In: Mortimer, J., Shanahan, M. (eds.). Handbook of the life
course. New York, NY: Plenum Press, 579–595.
Roccas, S. and Sagiv, L. (2009) Personal values and behavior: Taking the cultural context into
account. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 30–41.
Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H. and Knafo, A. (2002) The Big Five personality factors
and personal values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 789–801.
Rokeach, M. (1973) The nature of human values. New York, NY: Free Press.
Rokeach, M. (1972) Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values. New York, NY: Free Press.
Scarr, S. and Mccartney, K. (1983) How people make their own environments: A theory of
genotype-environment effects. Child Development, 54, 424–435.
Schwartz, S. H., and Bardi, A. (2001) Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking a similarities
perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 268–290.
Schwartz, S. H. (1996). Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of integrated value
systems. In: Seligman, C., Olson, J. M., Zanna, P. (eds.). The psychology of values: The
Ontario Symposium. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1–24.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994) Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human
values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–45.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992) Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances
and empirical tests in 20 countries. In: Zanna, M. P. (ed.). Advances in experimental
social psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic, 1–65.
International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Science Studies | ANDRÉ ATHAYDE | 22
VOLUME 6 ISSUE 1 ISBN: 978-1-913016-68-5 (Online) ISSN: 2397-6934 (Online) www.flepublications.com
Sheridan, J. E., Vredenburgh, D. J. and Abelson, M. A. (1984) Contextual model of leadership
influence in hospital units. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 57–78.
Silfver, M., Helkama, K., Lönnqvist, J. and Verkasalo, M. (2008) The relation between value
priorities and proneness to guilt, shame, and empathy. Motivation and Emotion, 32, 69–
80.
Smircich, L. and Morgan, G. (1982) Leadership: The management of meaning. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Studies, 18, 257–273.
Smith, P. B., Peterson, M. F., Thomason, S. J., and Event Meaning Management Research
Group. (2011) National Culture as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Manager’s
Use of Guidance Sources and How Well Work Events and Handled. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 42(6), 1101–1121.
Smith, P. B., and Peterson, M. F. (2005) Demographic Effects on the Use of Vertical Sources
of Guidance by Managers in Widely Differing Cultural Contexts. International Journal
of Cross-Cultural Management, Vol. 5(1), 5–26.
Smith, P. B., Peterson, M. F. and Schwartz, S. H. (2002) Cultural Values, Sources of Guidance,
and their relevance to managerial behavior: a 47-Nation Study. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 33(2), 188–208.
Smith, P. B., Peterson, M. F. and Misumi, J. (1994) Event management, and work team
effectiveness in Japan, Britain, and USA. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 67, 33–43.
Smith, P. B. and Peterson, M. F. (1988). Leadership, organizations and culture: An event
management model. London: Sage.
Snyder, M., and Ickes, W. (1985) Personality and social behavior. In: Aronson, E., Lindzey,
G. (eds.). Handbook of social psychology. New York, NY: Random House, 883–947.
Tamayo, A. and Porto, J. B. (2005) Valores e Comportamento nas Organizações. Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil: Vozes.
Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R. and Villareal M. J. (1988) Individualism and Collectivism:
Cross-Cultural Perspective on Self-Intergroup Relationship. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54(2), 323–338.
Verkasalo, M., Goodwin, R. and Bezmenova, I. (2006) Value change following a major
terrorist incident: Finnish adolescent and student values before and after 11th September
2001. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 144–160.
Whitehead, A. N. (1929). Process and reality. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Wille, B., and Fruyt, F. de. (2014) Vocations as a source of identity: Reciprocal relations
between big five personality traits and RIASEC characteristics over 15 years. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 99, 262–281.
