A Personal Story:

(1)

A Personal Story:

The Effects of Personality Characteristics

on Career Success in the

Mid-and Late-career stage

By

SANNEKE DIJKSTRA

Master Thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business July, 2010 Boskamp 28 9481 JG Vries (06)38541019 S.Dijkstra.12@student.rug.nl Student number: s1831593

First supervisor RUG: Drs. F.M. de Poel

(2)

2

A Personal Story:

The Effects of Personality Characteristics on Career Success in

the Mid- and Late- career stage

ABSTRACT

The present research addresses our personal story: the effects of the Big Five personality characteristics on objective and subjective career success in the mid-and late-career stage. Participants (N = 156) completed a questionnaire about this subject. After analyzing the data with hierarchical multiple regression analyses, it is found that conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness to experience have a negative relation with income raise. Moreover, neuroticism has a negative relationship with promotion, and extraversion has a positive relationship with promotion. Thereby, only neuroticism had a negative effect with career satisfaction. Career stage, moderated the relationship between openness to experience and career satisfaction, between conscientiousness and income raise, and between agreeableness and income raise. Finally, a marginal significant moderated relationship between conscientiousness and job satisfaction is found. Theoretical implications of these relationships could be the investigation of specific components of the personality dimensions, a combination of personality dimensions, take into account the early career stage, and external factors. Practical implications could be looking into occupations where some specific kind of personality characteristics would be valued, and managing personal career success needs to be done in order to take care of the well-being of employees.

Keywords: Big Five personality characteristics, objective career success, subjective career success, career stages

(3)

3

INTRODUCTION

‘Careers are personal and unique’ (Nicholson & De Waal-Andrews, 2005). It denotes our personal story and brings us to the moment where we are today (Nicholson & De Waal-Andrews, 2005). A common thread in our personal story concerning our career path, contains aspects as ‘who we are’ (personality characteristics), where we are in our career’ (career stages), and ‘what we want to achieve in our career’ (career success). The focus of this paper is on that personal story: the effects of personality characteristics on career success within different career stages.

According to Nicholson and De Waal-Andrews (2005), career success is based on what people already have accomplished, where they stand at the moment, and what kind of achievements they will try to establish in the future. As a consequence, career success is an important aspect for individuals in a way that career success (either objective or subjective career success) gives meaning to their lives and wellbeing (Echtelt & Hoff, 2008) or their personal story. It is an important factor for happiness about the consent of individuals (Echtelt & Hoff, 2008). Personality characteristics can play an essential role in this career success (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999). Several researchers investigated the relationship between the Big Five personality characteristics and career success (e.g. Judge et al., 1999; Seibert & Kraimer, 2001; Boizonelos, 2004). Some general and stable findings from this research indicate that conscientiousness and extraversion were positively related to career success and neuroticism negatively related to career success (e.g. Judge et al., 1999; Seibert & Kraimer, 2001; Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005; Rode, Arthaud-Day, Mooney, Near, & Baldwin, 2008). Whereby the other two dimensions, openness to experience, and agreeableness show less stable findings, because sometimes they were either positively or negatively related to career success (Judge et al., 1999; Seibert & Kraimer, 2001; Ng et al., 2005). Given these ambiguous findings and the importance of career success in life it is still needed to investigate the Big Five personality characteristics in relation to career success.

(4)

4

over). Further research should confirm these findings and therefore is taken into account in this research. Another reason for investigating career stage as a moderator is because of the intention of the Dutch Government to increase the pension age from 65 to 67 years. This means careers will be prolonged and organizations need to invest in their employees so they are motivated enough to stay in the organization. This is consistent with the theory about lifelong learning (Greller, 2006). In order for an organization to be successful, organizations are required to manage this increasing number of ‘older workers’ (Hess & Jepsen, 2009), because organizational success depends on personal success (Judge et al., 1999).

Building on these reasons, this research will focus on the question what the effects will be of the Big Five personality characteristics on career success, and what will happen to this relationship when people are in the mid- or late-career stage. For example, is there a positive relation between extraversion and career success in the mid- or late-career stage? Figure 1 describes the relationships. A field study among 1305 people was done in order to answer the research question. In 2005, these people have participated in a personality test of a human resource development consultancy firm, and in 2010 these people completed a second questionnaire on career success.

FIGURE 1 Conceptual Model H2 H1 Theoretical Framework

Big Five Personality Characteristics and Career Success. The first part of the personal story begins with the elaboration of ‘who we are’ (personality characteristics) and ‘what we want to achieve in our career’ (career success). Career success can be defined as “the accomplishment of desirable work-related outcomes at any point in a person’s work experiences over time” (Arthur, Khapova, & Wilderom, 2005). These desirable work-related outcomes can be split up in two kinds of career success, namely objective and subjective career success. First, objective career success is an observable and quantifiable outcome, like

Big Five Personality characteristics Conscientiousness Extraversion Neuroticism Openness to experience Agreeableness Career Success Objective success: number of promotion and annual pretax

income

Subjective success:

career satisfaction and job satisfaction Mid- and late-

(5)

5

the number of promotions and annual pretax income (Nicholson & De Waal-Andrews, 2005). Promotions can be defined as “any increase in level within the organization” (Seibert & Kraimer, 2001). Second, subjective career success can be described as an unobservable and qualitative outcome, like job satisfaction and career satisfaction (Lounsbury, Loveland, Sundstrom, Gibson, Drost, & Hamrick, 2003; Nicholson & De Waal-Andrews, 2005; Ng et al., 2005; Furnham, Eracleaous, & Charmorro-Premuzic, 2009). Career satisfaction can be defined as feelings of satisfaction of an individual concerning their whole career (Lounsbury et al., 2003) and job satisfaction as feelings of satisfaction individuals have concerning their work (Furnham, et al., 2009).

As said before, personality characteristics can play an essential role in career success. The most generally acknowledged and valid model to describe the personality characteristics is the Big Five model (Judge et al., 1999). This model defines five personality dimensions: conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, openness to experience, and agreeableness.

First, persons who score high on conscientiousness are very achievement oriented, goal-directed, and well-organized (Ng et al., 2005; Boudreau, Boswell, & Judge, 2001; Judge et al., 1999; Barrick & Mount, 1991). This means these persons create an work environment in which they are very decisive in reaching their own career goals, like a promotion, a certain annual income or satisfaction within their job or career (Furnham, Eracleaous, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2009). Particularly, achievement orientation is positively related to a promotion, or a managerial achievement (Tharenou, 1997). Judge et al. (1999) confirms this by arguing that a consistent finding from the assessment literature indicates that the strongest predictor of promotions is the achievement orientation of conscientious persons.

Second, Seibert and Kraimer (2001) show that persons who score high on extraversion have a higher annual income and more promotions. Reasons for this positive relationship can be found in behavior which extraverts show. They are characterized with dominance, assertiveness, and activity, all traits which are associated with success at higher levels in the organization (Boudreau et al., 2001). Another reason could be that extravert persons have a strong preference for working in social situations, and because of their social and political skills, it could lead to more rapid action in dealing with displeased career situations (Crant, 1995; Judge et al., 1999; Seibert & Kraimer, 2001).

(6)

6

career prospects (promotions and annual income) (Rawls & Rawls, 1968; Bozionelos, 2004; Tharenou, 1997; Boudreau et al., 2001). More specifically, Rawls and Rawls (1968) found that levels of self-acceptance was important in distinguishing successful and unsuccessful executives. Particularly, high levels of self-acceptance (low neuroticism) was associated with higher job levels, and low levels of self-acceptance (high neuroticism) was associated with lower job levels. Finally, Gelissen and De Graaf (2006) confirmed that if people are less emotionally stable (neuroticism), people are more likely to have a lower income.

According to a lot of researchers, the fourth dimension of the Big Five, openness to experience, is difficult to relate to career success (Judge et al., 1999; Boudreau et al., 2001; Seibert & Kraimer, 2001; Ng et al., 2005). Judge et al. (1999) give a reason for this concern, by stating on the one hand that high levels of openness to experience can contribute to career success, because of the characteristics as open-minded, flexible, innovative and intellectual orientation. On the other hand, it can form an obstacle for career success, because these people may be prone to job hopping (Judge et al., 1999). This might suggest that these people are less satisfied with their career or job, are less likely to get a higher annual income or a promotion, because they constantly need to start from the beginning when entering an organization. This notion is supported by some empirical evidence, which shows that the more open individuals are, the lower their salaries are they have received (Seibert & Kraimer, 2001; Gelissen & De Graaf, 2006).

Finally, the last dimension agreeableness is difficult to relate to career success as well (e.g. Judge et al., 1999; Ng et al., 2005). Judge, Bono, Illies, and Gerhardt (2002) give a reason for this statement. On the one hand, cooperative persons would flourish in occupations where teamwork is important, and on the other hand highly agreeable persons want to please others and therefore may sacrifice their own success (Judge et al., 2002). Although agreeableness has a positive effect, more negative effects have been found (Seibert & Kraimer, 2001; Bozionelos, 2004; Ng et al., 2005). Seibert and Kraimer (2001) demonstrate that in order to get a higher annual income or a promotion, persons need to be relative manipulative, less soft-hearted, and less gullible. These are characteristics which do not belong to agreeable persons. Bozionelos (2004) adds, that the features of agreeable persons, like sensitivity, care for others, and gentleness, hinder the career progression and satisfaction. The reason for this is that agreeable persons neglect or give less priority to their own career interests and career aspirations in order to please their colleagues who have the same career goals (Bozionelos, 2004).

(7)

7

agreeableness a negative relation. The findings about the dimension openness to experience are less clear, that is why in this research no hypothesis will be formulated about openness to experience and career success. This relationship will be examined on a explorative basis. Consequently, the following hypotheses can be formulated:

H1a: Conscientiousness is positively related to career success

H1b: Extraversion is positively related to career success

H1c: Neuroticism is negatively related to career success

H1d: Agreeableness is negatively related to career success

Mid- and Late- Career Stage, Big Five Personality Characteristics, and Career Success. The personal story continues with taking into account the aspect of ‘where we are in our career’. This aspect concerns the career stage people are in. A career stage can be defined as a “linear development over the course of a lifetime” (Hess & Jepsen, 2009). This means our personal story is expanded during our career. According to the theory of career development, individuals experience several career stages (Hess & Jepsen, 2009). Reichers (1986) distinguished three career stages: early career stage, mid-career stage, and late-career stage. In this research only the mid- and late-career stage of Reichers (1986) will be elaborated. The reason for this is that, especially in the mid- and late- career stage, making investments on a continuous basis of organizations in the ‘older workers’ is important in order for these workers to have added value to the labor market (Greller, 2006). Particularly, when the pension age will be raised and because of the aging workforce. According to Armstrong-Stassen, and Ursel (2009) if organizations neglect to invest in for example training and development opportunities, it can be detrimental to career success, especially career satisfaction. Greller (2006) adds to this that the ‘older worker’ could experience a reduced opportunity, security, and pay (or: objective career success) if the worker is not participating in training or other work-related activities. As a consequence, the intention to stay at the organization might be less likely for older employees who are less satisfied with their career (Armstrong-Stassen & Ursel, 2009).

(8)

8

that people work towards their career goal. The difference with the late-career stage is that people in this stage are more focused on what is already accomplished, maintaining interest in the job, and seeking greater opportunities for involvement (Conway, 2004; Hess & Jepsen, 2009). This indicates that persons place more emphasis on enjoying their work instead of on reaching a promotion or annual income (Slocum & Cron, 1985; Conway, 2004).

Consequently, this might suggest that the expected positive relation between conscientiousness, extraversion and career success is stronger in the mid-career stage than in the late-career stage. A reason for this is that persons in the mid-career stage may have the feeling they need to perform at their best in order to take care of their family and their internal drives, like career advancement (Hall & Mirvis, 1995). Therefore, conscientious and extraverted persons might flourish more in the mid-career stage than in the late-career stage, because they show characteristics, like achievement-oriented, decisive (Ng et al., 2005; Furnham et al., 2009), active, and assertive behavior (Boudreau, Boswell, & Judge, 2001). These characteristics could lead to reaching the goals of growth, prestige, and stability. In the late-career stage these characteristics probably become less significant, because in that stage maintaining interest in the job is more important (Hess & Jepsen, 2009).

Based on the difference between mid-and-late career stage, this difference also might suggest that the negative relation between neuroticism, agreeableness, and career success is stronger in the mid-career stage than in the late-career stage. A reason for this is that persons in the mid-career may have a feeling they need to perform at a higher level than in the late-career stage, because of the focus on late-career goals like growth, prestige and stability in the mid-career stage (Reichers, 1986; Conway, 2004; Nicholson & De Waal-Andrews, 2005). Persons who have a degree of neuroticism or agreeableness are probably less likely to reach these career goals and therefore these persons can hinder their own career progression or satisfaction, because of behaviors belonging to these characteristics (Judge & Locke, 1993; Bozionelos, 2004). The negative moods (neuroticism) of people might lead in the mid-career stage more to a loss of motivation, because the desire to achieve something is hard to reach. And being too agreeable and taking care of others (agreeableness) will probably lead in the mid-career stage more to helping others in keeping job status instead of taking care of themselves (Judge et al., 1999; Bozionelos, 2004). In the late-career stage, people probably take their personality characteristics more as they are. This may lead to a weaker negative relationship between neuroticism, agreeableness, and career success in the mid-career stage than in the late-career stage.

(9)

9

H2a: The positive relation between conscientiousness, extraversion, and career success is stronger in the mid-career stage than in the late-career stage

H2b: The negative relation between neuroticism, agreeableness, and career success is stronger in the mid-career stage than in the late-career stage

METHOD

Research Procedure

The target sample of this research are Dutch people who have participated in an assessment of a human resource development consultancy firm (HRD-consultancy firm), in the year 2005. This assessment included a personality test, which is named the new G-Five. This test is used in the analyses. The personality dimensions of the G5 are comparable to the personality dimensions of the Big Five (HRD-consultancy firm, 2010). The time period of five years is used in order to provide an sufficient time period in which to evaluate a candidate’s level of career success. The respondents are approached by e-mail and are asked to fill in a questionnaire concerning their career development from the last five years in a special questionnaire program: HRM-link. The e-mail explained the purpose of the study, that participation was voluntary, and that confidentiality of the respondents was assured. After 2,5 week a reminder has been sent to the respondents who have not yet filled in the questionnaire.

Sample

The sample consisted of 1305 people who have participated in an assessment of the HRD-consultancy firm and took the new G5- personality test in the year 2005. Out of the sample of 1305 people, 156 respondents (N= 156) completed the new questionnaire, which gives a response rate of 12%. Of the 156 respondents, 64.7% were male and 35.3% were female. These gender percentages are representative of the sample of 1305 people [χ² (df 1) = 1.22, n.s.]. The average age of the respondents is 44.6 years (S.D. = 8.45) with an average educational level of HBO. This average educational level is not representative of the sample of 1305 people [χ² (df 4) = 15.43, p < 0.00]. Most of the respondents work in other branches than indicated in the questionnaire (19.9%), the financial and business services (15.4%), and the health care sector (14.1%).

(10)

10

The first group of participants consists of 81 respondents who were between 25 and 40 years in the year 2005 and between 30 and 45 years old in the year 2010. This group is the mid-career stage group. Out of the 81 respondents in this group, 60.5% were male and 39.5% were female. The average age of the respondents in the mid-career stage is 38 years (S.D. = 5). Further, the average educational level of the mid-career stage group is HBO and most people work in other branches as indicated in the questionnaire (25.9%), and financial and business services (23.5%).

The second group of participants consist of 75 respondents who were between 41 and 58 years in the year 2005 and between 46 and 63 years old in the year 2010. This group is called the late-career stage group. Out of the 75 respondents in this group, 69.3% were male and 30.7% were female. The average age of the respondents in the late-career stage is 52 years (S.D. = 4). Further, the average educational level of the late-career stage group is HBO and most people work in the healthcare sector (22.7%).

Measures

Personality characteristics. The personality characteristics were measured by a HRD-consultancy firm in the year 2005 for either a selection or a counseling examination on an individual level using the new G5 personality test. This test is based on the original dimensions of the Big Five (HRD-consultancy firm, 2010). It consists of the five dimensions of the Big Five, conscientiousness (40 items), extraversion (26 items), emotional stability (23 items), openness to experience (47 items), and agreeableness (28 items). These items were rated on a five-point Likert scale anchored by 1 = ‘completely not applicable’ and 5 = ‘completely applicable’. The scale is unpublished (appendix A: Scales; 1.1 Scale G5). Within the personality characteristics, the variable ‘emotional stability’, is reverse coded to neuroticism (appendix A: Scales; 1.1 Scale G5 ).

Before running any analysis, several items of the G5 are deleted. A total of 20 items per personality dimension was kept, based on the rest item correlation. This number is based on the dimension with the fewest items, namely emotional stability. Thereby, a limiting value of 0.35 is held and three items of the dimension emotional stability are removed. Of the other dimensions the best 20 items are chosen to be kept. The others are deleted (appendix A: Scales; 1.2 Items Deleted; Table 1: Item Total Correlation G5). The G5 scale is reliable with a Cronbach alpha of 0.92 for conscientiousness, 0.91 for extraversion, 0.91 for neuroticism, 0.87 for openness to experience, and 0.86 for agreeableness.

(11)

11

have been measured by using the method of Seibert and Kraimer (2001). The respondents were asked to report the number of promotions they had received over their working years using five categories (appendix A: Scales; 1.2 Scale Career Success). Thereby, the respondents were also asked to report their annual pretax income, using five income categories (appendix A: Scales; 1.2 Scale Career Success) and to report the number of an increase in income (appendix A: Scales; 1.2 Scale Career Success). The objective career success scale is reliable with a Cronbach alpha of 0.66.

The second two are aspects of subjective career success, namely career satisfaction and job satisfaction. Career satisfaction is measured by using the scale of Greenhause, Parasuraman, and Wormley (1990). The five-point Likert-type scale is anchored by 1 = ‘Completely disagree’ and 5 = ‘Completely agree’. Five items measured career satisfaction (e.g. “I am satisfied with the success I have achieved in my career”). Job satisfaction is measured by using the scale of De Witte (2000). The five-point Likert-type scale is anchored by 1 = ‘Completely disagree’ and 5 = ‘Completely agree’. Six items, which are already translated into Dutch by Bouwen, De Witte, De Witte, and Taillieu (2000), measure job satisfaction (e.g. “I am very satisfied with my current job”) (appendix A: Scales; 1.3 Scale Career Success). The subjective career success scale is reliable with a Cronbach alpha of 0.90. Mid- and late-career stage. Career stage was measured using the variable age (Cohen, 1991). It is the most commonly used indicator of career stage in the career developmental models and therefore will be used in this research (Levinson, Darrow, Klein, Levinson, & McKee, 1978; Super, 1957, in: Cohen, 1991). The mid- and late- career stage were categorized by using the age boundaries of Conway (2004). The mid-career stage ranges from 30 till 45 years, and the late-career stage ranges from 46 years and over.

(12)

12

Factor Analysis

A principal component factor analysis with Varimax rotation is used for the G5 personality dimensions and the objective and subjective career success dimensions (Kootstra, 2004). This analysis is used in order to analyze whether all of these dimensions are independent of each other and whether the items are loading on their own personality dimension or career success dimension (DiStefano, Zhu, & Mîndrilă, 2009).

First, the G5 personality dimensions. The application of the extraction method using five factors explained 42.56% of the variance in data. The Bartlett’s test of sphericity [χ²(N = 156, df = 4950) = 11,145.91 p < 0.00] shows that the model is significant. The rotated component matrix of the G5 (appendix B: Factor Analysis; Table 2: Factor Analysis G5) shows that the items of the dimensions conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and agreeableness have all high factor loadings on their own factor between 0.31 and 0.79. There are some highlights to discover within these dimensions. One item of neuroticism namely, ‘Stress5’, is not loading on the own factor, but load negative on the factors conscientiousness (-0.39) and openness to experience (-0.34). Thereby, there are two items of agreeableness which are also loading on another factor, namely ‘Cooperatief1’ on extraversion, and ‘Inschikkelijk8’ on openness to experience. These factor loadings (0.35 respectively 0.38) are higher than the own factor loading (0.31 respectively 0.36). Finally, one item of agreeableness does not load at all on agreeableness, namely ‘Cooperatief2’. This item has a factor loading of 0.37 on extraversion. The factor loadings of the dimension openness to experience are a different story. Of the 20 items, 15 items are loading on their own factor, number five, with factor loadings between 0.32 and 0.65. Some of these 15 items are also loading on other factors. The remaining five items have high factor loadings between 0.52 and 0.70 on the third factor, agreeableness, instead on their own factor. Of these five items, only the item ‘Ruimdenkend3’ have a factor loading on the own factor, but lower (0.43).

(13)

13

satisfaction also indicate high factor loadings on their own factor between 0.60 and 0.81. Only the items ‘Loopbaantevredenheid1’ and Loopbaantevredenheid3’ are loading respectively on the first factor, job satisfaction (0.34), and the third factor, objective career success (0.46).

Data Analysis

After the factor analysis, the scores are saved with the Anderson-Rubin method. The reason to choose this, is because five items of the dimension openness to experience are loading very high (between 0.52 and 0.70) on the dimension agreeableness. This means these items measure agreeableness instead of openness to experience. By using the Anderson-Rubin method it ensures that the dimensions are uncorrelated and therefore independent (Rietveld & Van Hout, 1993, in: Kootstra, 2004), which is important in this research. An advantage of the uncorrelated Big Five factors is that in this way the factor scores have reasonably high correlations with their own factor instead of correlations with other Big Five factors (DiStefano, Zhu, & Mîndrilă, 2009). Kootstra (2004) also adds that the Anderson-Rubin method makes the factors usable in multiple regression analysis.

The approach used to test the hypotheses is the hierarchical multiple regression analysis, which is also used in other research where moderated relationships were investigated (Conway, 2004). Dummy variables are created of the career stages categories, mid- and late-career stage, which is also consistent with other research (Conway, 2004). The hierarchical multiple regression analysis consist of two phases. The first phase shows the descriptive statistics and gives an overall view of the mean, standard deviation, and the correlations between the variables. The second phase consist of testing the hypotheses in three sequential steps. The first step makes clear how much variance in career success is explained by the control variables, and thereby what kind of relationship these variables have with career success. The second step adds to the first step the Big Five personality characteristics, and the mid-and late-career stage, and shows the relationship between these variables. The last step adds to the second step, the interaction variables (Big Five x dummy mid- and late-career stage) and the relationship between these variables. The interaction variables indicates whether there is a difference between the regression weights in the mid-and late-career stage. Moreover, a simple slope test is conducted only when a significant interaction effect is found. This test points out whether the regression coefficient in the mid- or late-career stage significantly differs from zero.

(14)

14

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics

(15)

TABLE 4

Mean (M), Standard Deviation (SD), and Correlations

(16)

Results Hypotheses

Tables 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 show the results of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis of the dependent variables objective career success, and respectively subjective career success.

TABLE 5

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Promotion

Promotion

Variables (N = 156) Step 1 (b) t Step 2 (b) t Step 3 (b) t

Intercept 4.31*** 7.80 3.85*** 6.93 3.82*** 6.76 Gender -0.45* -2.32 -0.23 -1.16 -0.23 -1.11 Educational level -0.02 -0.21 0.01 0.14 0.01 0.15 Organizational tenure 0.00 1.37 0.00 0.96 0.00 1.09 Conscientiousness -0.16 -1.68 -0.12 -0.94 Extraversion 0.18* 2.13 0.18 1.63 Neuroticism -0.24** -2.60 -0.21~ -1.83 Openness to experience -0.08 -0.94 -0.04 -0.28 Agreeableness -0.11 -1.30 -0.21 -1.51

Mid-and Late-career stage 0.51** 2.68 0.48** 2.52

Interaction Conscientiousness -0.08 -0.44

Interaction Extraversion -0.05 -0.24

Interaction Neuroticism -0.11 0.55

Interaction Openness to experience -0.07 -0.41

Interaction Agreeableness 0.18 0.97

R2 0.05 0.20 0.21

∆ R2 0.03* 0.15*** 0.13

F 2.71 4.60 0.33

(17)

17

TABLE 6

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Annual Pretax Income

Annual Pretax Income

Intercept 2.35*** 4.93 2.21*** 4.36 2.18*** 4.22 Gender -0.83*** -4.95 -0.69*** -3.74 -0.66*** -3.49 Educational level 0.24*** 3.14 0.24*** 2.96 0.24*** 2.95 Organizational tenure 0.00 1.10 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.92 Conscientiousness -0.11 -1.33 -0.05 -0.39 Extraversion 0.06 0.75 0.09 0.94 Neuroticism -0.09 -1.11 -0.08 -0.81 Openness to experience 0.03 0.40 0.10 0.81 Agreeableness -0.08 -0.99 -0.06 -0.48

Mid-and Late-career stage 0.26 1.49 0.25 1.40

Interaction Neuroticism -0.04 -0.23

Interaction Openness to experience -0.13 -0.77

Interaction Agreeableness -0.02 -0.10

R2 0.17 0.22 0.23

∆ R2 0.16** 0.17 0.15

F 10.59 1.34 0.39

(18)

18

TABLE 7

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Income Raise

Income Raise

Intercept 3.65*** 7.09 3.47*** 6.61 3.33*** 6.46 Gender -0.34~ -1.90 -0.34~ -1.90 -0.34~ -1.90 Educational level 0.13 1.51 0.13 1.51 0.13 1.51 Organizational tenure 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.58 Conscientiousness -0.26*** -2.96 -0.26*** -2.96 Extraversion 0.10 1.16 0.10 1.16 Neuroticism -0.14 -1.60 -0.14 -1.60 Openness to experience -0.16* -1.94 -0.16* -1.94 Agreeableness -0.19* -2.33 -0.19* -2.33

Interaction Conscientiousness -0.36* -2.21

Interaction Extraversion 0.04 0.26

Interaction Openness to experience 0.22 1.35

Interaction Agreeableness 0.36* 2.15

R2 0.04 0.17 0.23

∆ R2 0.02 0.11*** 0.15*

F 1.81 3.83 2.31

(19)

19

TABLE 8

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Career Satisfaction

Career Satisfaction

Intercept 3.56*** 9.85 3.44*** 8.93 3.38*** 8.82 Gender 0.09 0.72 0.19 1.34 0.11 0.80 Educational level 0.02 0.41 0.03 0.47 0.04 0.63 Organizational tenure 0.00* 2.25 0.00~ 1.88 0.00* 2.02 Conscientiousness -0.06 -0.92 -0.04 -0.43 Extraversion 0.05 0.85 0.05 0.68 Neuroticism -0.12* -1.94 -0.07 -0.88 Openness to experience -0.01 -0.17 -0.13 -1.49 Agreeableness 0.02 0.29 -0.06 -0.66

Interaction Openness to experience 0.25* 2.07

Interaction Agreeableness 0.18 0.15

R2 0.04 0.08 0.13

∆ R2 0.02 0.03 0.05

F 1.83 1.31 1.63

(20)

20

TABLE 9

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Job Satisfaction

Job Satisfaction

Intercept 3.63*** 8.56 3.58*** 7.84 3.62*** 7.96 Gender -0.02 -1.14 0.04 0.23 0.02 0.09 Educational level 0.01 0.16 0.01 0.16 0.01 0.13 Organizational tenure 0.00 1.12 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.61 Conscientiousness 0.01 0.11 -0.13 -1.28 Extraversion 0.07 0.95 0.09 0.96 Neuroticism -0.11 -1.40 -0.02 -0.16 Openness to experience 0.06 0.77 -0.02 -0.18 Agreeableness -0.18 -0.25 0.10 0.88

Interaction Conscientiousness -0.27~ 1.88

Interaction Extraversion 0.02 0.16

Interaction Openness to experience 0.15 1.05

Interaction Agreeableness -0.18 -1.21

R2 0.01 0.04 0.09

∆ R2 -0.01 -0.02 0.00

F 0.44 0.68 1.68

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, ~p < 0.10

Step 1: Control variables. Table 5 shows that the control variables (step 1) account for 5% of the variation in promotion. The remaining 95% is unexplained. The first model causes R² to change from zero to 0.05 and is significant (∆ R² = 0.05, F = 2.71, p < 0.05).

With regard to annual pretax income table 6 shows that the control variables account for 17% of the variation in annual pretax income. The remaining 83% is unexplained. The first model causes R² to change from zero to 0.17 and is significant (∆ R² = 0.17, F = 10.59, p < 0.01).

The control variables in table 7 account for 4% of the variation in income raise and are not significant. The remaining 96% is unexplained. The first model causes R² to change from zero to 0.04 (∆ R² = 0.04, F = 1.81, n.s.).

(21)

21

With regard to job satisfaction, table 9 shows that the control variables account for 1% of the variation in job satisfaction. The remaining 99% is unexplained. The first model causes R² to change from zero to 0.01 (∆ R² = 0.01, F = 0.44, n.s.).

A relationship is found of the control variable gender (men = 0, women = 1) and promotion. The regression results in table 5 point out that gender and promotion are negatively related and significant (b = -0.45, t = -2.32, p < 0.05). Also a relationship is found of gender with annual pretax income (b = -0.83, t = -4.95, p < 0.00), which table 6 shows. Table 7 indicates that the control variable gender shows a marginal relationship with income raise (b = -0.34, t = -1.90, p < 0.10). These regression results shows that women have less promotion, less annual pretax income, and less raise of income than men. Finally, the control variable educational level shows a significant relationship with annual pretax income (b = 0.24, t = 3.14, p < 0.00). This indicates a higher educational level takes care of a higher annual pretax income.

Step 2: Big Five and dummy mid-and late-career stage. When adding the Big Five variables and the dummy variable mid-and late-career stage (step 2), table 5 shows that these variables account for 20% of the variation in promotion. The remaining 80% is unexplained. The addition of the predictors causes R² to increase by 0.15 (∆ R² = 0.15, F = 4.60, p < 0.00).

Table 6 shows that these variables account for 22% of the variation in annual pretax income. The remaining 78% is unexplained. The addition of the predictors causes R² to increase by 0.04 (∆ R² = 0.04, F = 1.34, n.s.).

With regard to income raise, table 7 shows that the Big Five variables and the dummy variable account for 17% in income raise. The remaining 83% is unexplained. The addition of the predictors causes R² to increase by 0.13 (∆ R² = 0.13, F = 3.83, p < 0.00).

Table 8 shows that these variables account for 8% of the variation in career satisfaction. The remaining 92% is unexplained. The addition of the predictors causes R² to increase by 0.05, which is not significant (∆ R² = 0.05, F = 1.31, n.s.).

The last table, table 9 shows that these variables account for 4% of the variation in job satisfaction. The remaining 96% is unexplained. The addition of the predictors causes R² to increase by 0.03. However, this increase is not significant (∆ R² = 0.03, F = 0.68, n.s.).

(22)

22

and annual pretax income (b = -0.11, t = -1.33, n.s.), which can be seen in table 5, and respectively table 6.

The regression results in table 8 of conscientiousness on career satisfaction shows that these results are not significant (b = -0.06, t = 0.85, n.s.). This means the evidence do not support the hypothesis. The results in table 9 of conscientiousness on job satisfaction show no significant relationship as well (b = 0.01, t = 0.11, n.s.).

Extraversion. Hypothesis 1b proposes that extraversion is positively related to career success. With regard to objective career success, the results in table 5 show a positive and significant relationship of extraversion with promotion (b = 0.18, t = 2.13, p < 0.05), which was expected. This means if the degree of extraversion increases, promotion opportunities increases. No significant relationship is found of extraversion with annual pretax income (b = 0.06, t = 0.75, n.s.) and between extraversion and income raise (b = 0.10, t = 1.16, n.s.), which can be seen in table 6, and respectively table 7.

Table 8 shows the regression results of extraversion on career satisfaction. This relationship shows no significant relationship (b = 0.05, t = 0.85, n.s.). The regression results for the relationship of extraversion on job satisfactions in table 9 show no significant relationship as well (b = 0.07, t = 0.95, n.s.).

Neuroticism. Hypothesis 1c suggests that neuroticism is negatively related to career success. The results in table 5 show that the hypothesis is supported for a measure of objective career success, namely promotion (b = -0.24, t = -2.60, p < 0.00). This means if the degree of neuroticism increases, promotion opportunities decreases. No relationships are found of neuroticism and annual pretax income (b = -0.09, t = -1.11, n.s.), and income raise (b = -0.14, t = -1.60, n.s.), which can be seen in table 6 respectively table 7.

Hypothesis 1c is also supported for career satisfaction, which can be seen in table 8 (b = -0.12, t = -1.94, p < 0.05). This result indicates when the degree of neuroticism increases, career satisfaction decreases. With regard to job satisfaction table 9 shows that this hypothesis is not supported (b = -0.11, t = -1.40, n.s.).

(23)

23

Table 8 shows the regression results of agreeableness on career satisfaction. No significant relationship is found (b = 0.02, t = 0.29, n.s.) and therefore the hypothesis cannot be supported. The results in table 9 of agreeableness on job satisfaction show no significant relationship as well (b = 0.07, t = -0.25, n.s.).

Openness to experience. This personality characteristic is measured on an explorative basis. With regard to the relationship of openness to experience and objective career success, table 7 shows that a negative significant relationship is found between openness to experience and income raise (b = -0.16, t = -1.94, p < 0.05). This result points out if the degree of openness to experience increases the level of income raise decreases. Table 5 and 6 show that no significant relationships are found between the variables openness to experience and promotion (b = -0.08, t = -0.94, n.s.) and between openness to experience and annual pretax income (b = 0.03, t = 0.40, n.s.).

The regression results of table 8 point out that no relationship is found between openness to experience and career satisfaction as well (b = -0.01, t = -0.17, n.s.). Also, table 9 shows that no evidence is found between openness to experience and job satisfaction (b = 0.06, t = 0.77, n.s.).

Step 3: Interaction variables. Finally, the interaction variables (Big Five dimension x dummy variable mid-and late-career stage) are added to the model (step 3). Table 5 shows when these interaction variables conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, openness to experience, and agreeableness, these interaction variables account for 21% of the variation in a measure of objective career success, that is promotion. The remaining 79% is unexplained. The addition of these interaction variables causes R² to increase by 0.01 (∆ R² = 0.01, F = 0.33, n.s.), which is not significant.

Table 6 shows that the interaction variables account for 23% in the variation in annual pretax income. The remaining 77% is unexplained. The addition of these interaction variables causes R² to increase by 0.01 (∆ R² = 0.01, F = 0.39, n.s.), which is not significant.

Further, table 7 shows that the interaction variables account for 23% in the variation of income raise. The remaining 77% is unexplained. The addition of these interaction variables causes R² to increase by 0.06 (∆ R² = 0.06, F = 2.31, p < 0.05), which is significant.

(24)

24

Table 9 shows that the interaction variables account for 9% of the variation in job satisfaction. The remaining 91% is unexplained. The addition of the interaction variables causes R² to increase by 0.05 (∆ R² = 0.05, F = 1.68, n.s.).

Conscientiousness. Hypothesis 2a proposes that the positive relation between conscientiousness and career success is stronger in the mid-career stage than in the late-career stage. The regression results in table 7 show a significant moderating effect of the mid-and late-career stage on the relationship between conscientiousness and income raise (b = -0.36, t = -2.21, p < 0.05). This means if a person has a high degree of openness to experience, income raise goes down as a person changes from the mid-career stage to the late-career stage. Figure 2 (appendix C: Interaction Effect Objective Career Success) will describe this interaction effect. A simple slope analysis is conducted with a dichotomous variable of mid-and late-career stage mid-and is partly significant. The simple slope of the mid-mid-and late career stage (mid = 0, late = 1) show bL = -0.07 (SE = 0.12, t = -0.58, n.s.), and the simple slope of the mid- and late-career stage (mid = 1, late = 0) show bh = -0.43 (SE = 0.12, t = -3.70, p < 0.00).

Moreover, the regression results in table 5, 6, and 8 show that no evidence is found for two measures of objective career success, that is promotion ( b = -0.08, t = -0.44, n.s.) and annual pretax income (b = -0.14, t = -0.87, n.s.), and one measure of subjective career success, that is career satisfaction (b = -0.04, t = -0.33, n.s.). A marginal significant moderating effect is found of the mid-and late-career stage on the relationship between conscientiousness and job satisfaction (b = 0.27, t = 1.88, p < 0.10.), which can be seen in table 7.

Extraversion. Hypothesis 2a proposes that the positive relation between extraversion and career success is stronger in the mid-career stage than in the late-career stage. The regression results in table 5, 6, and 7 show that no evidence is found for this relationship with all the measures of objective career success, promotion (b = -0.05, t = -0.24, n.s.), annual pretax income (b = -0.12, t = -0.72, n.s.), and income raise (b = 0.04, t = 0.26, n.s.). Moreover, also no evidence is found for this relationship with the measures of subjective career success, career satisfaction (b = -0.05, t = -0.36, n.s.), and job satisfaction (b = 0.02, t = 0.16, n.s.), which can be seen in table 8, and respectively table 9.

(25)

25

career success, career satisfaction (b = -0.18, t = -1.44, n.s.), and job satisfaction (b = -0.21, t = -1.42, n.s.), which can be seen in table 8, and respectively table 9.

Agreeableness. Hypothesis 2b also proposes that the negative relation between agreeableness and career success is stronger in the mid-career stage than in the late-career stage. The regression results in table 7 show a significant moderating effect of the mid-and late-career stage on the relationship between agreeableness and income raise (b = 0.36, t = 2.15, p < 0.05). This means if a person has a high degree of agreeableness, income raise goes up as a person changes from the mid-career stage to the late-career stage. Figure 3 (appendix C: Interaction Effect Objective Career Success) will describe this interaction effect. A simple slope analysis is conducted with a dichotomous variable of mid-and late-career stage and is partly significant. The simple slope of the mid-and late career stage (mid = 0, late = 1) show bL = -0.38 (SE = 0.13, t = -3.02, p < 0.05), and the simple slope of the mid- and late-career stage (mid = 1, late = 0) show bh = -0.03 (SE = 0.11, t = -0.23, n.s.).

Moreover, the regression results in table 5 and 6 show that no evidence is found for two measures of objective career success, that is promotion ( b = 0.18, t = 0.07, n.s.) and annual pretax income (b = -0.02, t = -0.10, n.s.). Furthermore, table 8 and 9 show that the mid-and late-career stage is not a significant moderator between agreeableness and career satisfaction (b = 0.18, t = 0.15, n.s.), and between agreeableness and job satisfaction (b = -0.18, t = -1.21, n.s.).

Openness to experience. The regression results in table 5, 6, and 7 show that no moderating effect of the mid-and late-career stage on the relationship between openness to experience and the three measures of objective career success is found. That is, promotion (b = -0.07, t = -0.41, n.s.), annual pretax income (b = -0.13, t = -0.77, n.s.), and income raise (b = 0.22, t = 1.35, n.s.). Also, table 9 points out that the mid-and late-career stage is not a significant moderator on the relationship between openness to experience and job satisfaction (b = 0.15, t = 1.05, n.s.).

(26)

26

the simple slope of the mid- and late-career stage (mid = 1, late = 0) show bh = 0.12 (SE = 0.08, t = 1.42, n.s.).

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this research was to explore our personal story: whether the Big Five personality characteristics can predict career success and what will happen to this relationship when people are in the mid-or late-career stage. Below the specific findings will be elaborated.

Conscientiousness. Contrary to the expected hypothesis 1a and previous research (e.g. Judge et al., 1999; Bozionelos, 2004), if the degree of conscientiousness increases, income raise will decrease. There are some reasons to explain this negative relationship. For example, Robertson et al. (2000) indicate that a high degree of conscientiousness can suppress creativity and divergent thinking, which in turn has a negative effect on objective career success.

Furthermore, a significant difference between mid-and late-career stage is found for the relation between conscientiousness and income raise, namely if a person has a high degree of conscientiousness, raise of income goes down when a person changes from the mid-career stage to the late-career stage (figure 2). An explanation for this could be that the focus of persons in the late-career stage is on maintaining interest in the job instead of on growth and prestige, which is important in the mid-career stage (Conway, 2004; Nicholson & De Waal-Andrews, 2005). Therefore, income raise can go down when people change from the mid-career stage to the late-mid-career stage.

(27)

27

Moreover, a marginal significant moderating effect of the mid-and late-career stage on the relationship between conscientiousness and job satisfaction is found. This marginal effect shows that people with a high degree of conscientiousness have less job satisfaction in the mid- than in the late-career stage. This is not in line with the expected hypothesis (H2a), which proposed that the positive relation between conscientiousness and career success is stronger in the mid-career stage than in the late-career stage. Although, this effect is marginal significant it gives an indication that the mid-and late- care stage have an influence on conscientiousness and job satisfaction. Further research should seek to confirm this relationship.

Extraversion. Concerning the relationship between extraversion and objective career success, a significant positive relationship is found with promotion. This point out if the degree of extraversion increases, promotion opportunities also will increase (H1b). This finding is consistent with previous research (Seibert & Kraimer, 2001). This effect further indicates the fundamental role that extraversion can play in career advancement and can be very useful in completing goals in any organizational environment (Seibert & Kraimer, 2001).

Neuroticism. Although, in previous research conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness predict career success (e.g. Judge et al., 1999; Seibert & Kraimer, 2001, Wu, Foo, & Turban, 2008), the negative relation of neuroticism on career success remains one of the most stable findings (Boudreau et al., 2001; Seibert & Kraimer, 2001; Lounsbury et al., 2003; Wu, Foo, & Turban, 2008). Also, in this research a negative significant effect is found between neuroticism and promotion, and between neuroticism and career satisfaction (H1c). These results point out that the evidence of the negative relation on career success becomes more generally acknowledged. In addition, these findings confirm that characteristics of neuroticism, like low confidence and pessimism, have a detrimental influence on aspects of career success, like promotion opportunities and career satisfaction (Bozionelos, 2004; Seibert & Kraimer, 2001).

Agreeableness. Furthermore, the results point out that if the degree of agreeableness increases, raise of income decreases. This is consistent with the expected hypothesis (H1d). This also corresponds to previous research of Seibert and Kraimer (2001) or Bozionelos (2004). It indicates that ‘nice guys’ may finish last (Seibert & Kraimer, 2001). This result confirms that because of the characteristics of agreeable persons, like the intention to sacrifice themselves, and altruism, these people may attach less priority to their own objective career success (Bozionelos, 2004).

(28)

28

a high degree of agreeableness, raise of income goes up when a person changes from the mid-career stage to the late-mid-career stage (figure 3). This confirms that people in the late-mid-career stage are more focused on maintaining interest in the job (Conway, 2004) and take their personality characteristics more as they are in comparison to people in mid-career stage. According to Ryan (2009) the degree of agreeableness decreases with age. Hence, when people change from the mid-career stage to the late-career stage, they may pay less attention to others’ career and as a result the raise of income could increase.

After the simple slope analysis, the results indicate that only the late-career stage has a significant and negative effect on the relationship between agreeableness and income raise. No significant effects are found for the mid-career stage. This result points out that agreeableness has no influence on income raise during mid-career stage, but does during late-career stage. An explanation for this could be that in this research 22.7 percent of the people in the late-career stage work in the healthcare sector, or the people-oriented occupations. According to Seibert and Kraimer (2001) agreeableness is related negatively to objective career success in people-oriented occupations, because these persons are busier on pleasing others instead of themselves. In comparison, in this research 23.5 percent of the people in the mid-career stage work in the financial and business services, which includes less people-oriented occupations. Therefore, this could mean that no significant effects are found in the mid-career stage.

Openness to experience. The relationship of openness to experience with objective career success is examined on an explorative basis. The findings suggested that people who were more open received a lower raise of income. This is confirmed by Seibert and Kraimer (2001). Confirmation of this relationship in future research is warranted, since this result was not hypothesized.

(29)

29

positively, because they might have already reached what they had in mind for their careers (Armstrong-Stassen & Ursel, 2009).

After the simple slope analysis, the results show that openness to experience has no influence on career satisfaction during mid- or late-career stage. This is confirmed by Judge et al. (2002) who point out that openness to experience has not been related to many criteria. This is also confirmed by Ng et al. (2005), who arguing that open individuals are not clearly connected to career success, except for jobs that require creativity. In this research most people work not in jobs that require creativity. Therefore, it could be that no effect is found.

Control variables. Finally, the control variable gender shows a significant negative relationship with objective career success, namely women have lower objective career success than men. This is consistent with the literature, which states that stereotypes about women still exist; in turn women may be less likely to be chosen for career development (Ng et al., 2005). Moreover, women tend to be overrepresented in lower paying branches such as social work (Ng et al., 2005). As a consequence, although they have the same educational levels as men, women may see less payment in terms of promotion and salary (Ng et al., 2005).

In all, the general finding of the results is that some personality characteristics are capable of predicting career success, especially objective career success instead of subjective career success. These findings can increase the knowledge of the role of the Big Five personality characteristics in relation to career success in organizations.

The fact that almost no main effect is found for subjective career success in comparison to objective career success could mean that the degree of job or career happiness in this research does not depend solely on personality characteristics. It could be that happiness in one’s job or career might depend more on life events people are experiencing or the opportunities people get to develop themselves (Nicholson & De Waal-Andrews, 2005; Lounsbury, Gibson, Steel, Sundstrom, & Loveland, 2004). Nicholson and De Waal-Andrews (2005) add that especially with subjective career success, personal meanings and private fulfillments come into being. This means subjective career success might not be dependent on personal characteristics as conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and openness to experience, but on what people value and what they find is necessary at the moment. For example, be satisfied with the job in order to take care of family, instead of really enjoying work.

Theoretical Implications

(30)

30

on objective career success. The reason for this could be that personality and career success are related through its association with other factors. Nicholson and De Waal-Andrews (2005) add that one of these factors can be aspects of subjective career success. According to Nicholson and De Waal-Andrews (2005) subjective career success follows objective career success, for example, reduced self-esteem can lead to low achievement of a promotion, or annual pretax income and can result in lower satisfaction levels. Therefore, future research should look into this aspect.

Furthermore, in order to understand the relationship of personality characteristics and career success, a combination of some personality characteristics in relation to career success would also be interesting to investigate. Witt, Burge, Barrick, and Mount (2002) point out that if personality characteristics are not in balance with each other, people may be less effective. For example, if people have a high degree of conscientiousness, but are also highly disagreeable (i.e. uncooperative), these people are likely to lack important personal skills which could lead to lower performance levels or dysfunctional behaviors.

In this research the early career stage is not taken into account, which can be interesting, because career success is a process that develops over time (Boudreau et al., 1999). Judge et al. (1999) add that if you already have insight about someone’s personality early in life, like the early-career stage, this can be an effective predictor of one’s career success in the mid- or late-career stage. Therefore, a longitudinal study would be necessary in order to get good insights in this process.

Moreover, the marginal significant moderator effect of the mid-and late-career stage on the relationship between conscientiousness and job satisfaction requires further research. The reason for this is that there is a tendency that there is a relationship between these variables, but it needs to be confirmed by other research.

Finally, in this research career stage appears to have little influence on the relationship between personality characteristics and career success. A reason for this could be that other factors play a more important role, like mental ability and experiential factors (Bozionelos, 2004). For example, it has been suggested that some unique mental abilities that are essential for specific jobs may relate to organization-specific objective career success (Bozionelos, 2004). Further research should confirm this finding.

Strengths and Limitations

(31)

31

to handle with these outcomes. Another strong point of this research is the high confidence level of the questionnaire, because it was spread with a special program called HRM-link. Furthermore, a strong point of this research was the sample size of 156 respondents. Moreover, common method variance is a little bit reduced, because in this research two measurement periods were used. Finally, the Anderson-Rubin method in the factor analysis is a strong point, because of the use of independent variables, which also makes comparison better.

Besides the strong points, this research has also some limitations. First, this research has used self-report measures, which are subjective in nature. This could produce some socially desirable answers. Although, in this research there were two measurement periods, this research might reflect some small common method variance, because of the self-report measures (Cascio & Aguinis, 2005). The reason for this is that information is only obtained from the persons themselves instead of other sources. In other research, this common method variance can be reduced by following procedural remedies, like using different sources by obtaining measures of the predictors and criterion (Cascio & Aguinis, 2005). Third, the percentage of higher educated people was very high: 48.7% had an education level of HBO. This percentage was not representative of the total sample of 1305, because at this moment only the educational level of the participants are known which can be changed in a period of five years. Although this is a limitation, in this research there has been controlled for the variable educational level. Finally, more men than women participated in this research. Although, these percentages were representative of the sample of 1305 people, generalizing the results would therefore be restricted.

Practical Implications

(32)

32

(Furnham et al., 2009). Especially, the variables which could influence subjective career success are important for the late-career stage workers, or the ‘older workers’, because their focus is maintaining interest in the job (Conway, 2004). Therefore, Greller (2006) points out that in order to keep ‘older workers’ viable in the labor market and motivated, investments need to be done. The results of this research give a small indication of which Big Five personality characteristics has an influence on aspects of objective career success, like promotion, annual pretax income, and income raise. It could help people to look into occupations where these characteristics would be valued. Finally, this research gives a small indication that career stage has an influence on the relationship between some personality characteristics and career success. This means managing personal career success, might not always depend on career stage, but it is certainly an aspect that needs to be done in order to take care of the wellbeing of the employees, no matter the age of the employees.

(33)

33

REFERENCES

Armstrong-Stassen, M., & Ursel, N.D. (2009). Perceived organizational support, career satisfaction, and the retention of older workers. Journal of Occupation and Organizational Psychology, 82, 201-220. doi: 10.1348/096317908X288838

Arthur, M.B., Khapova, S.N., & Wilderom, C.P.M. (2005). Career success in a boundaryless career world. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 177–202.

Boudreau, J.W., Boswell, W.R., & Judge, T.A. (2001). Effects of personality on executive career success in the United States and Europe. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 53-81. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.2000.1755

Bozionelos, N. (2004). The relationship between disposition and career success: A British study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77 403-420

Cascio, W.F., & Aguinis, H. (2005). Applied Psychology in Human Resource Management. London: Pearson Prentice Hall

Cohen, A. (1991). Career stage as a moderator of the relationships between organizational commitment and its outcomes: a meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 253-268

Conway, E. (2004). Relating career stage to attitudes towards HR practices and commitment: evidence of interaction effects? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13 (4), 417-446

Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: the NEO personality inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4 (1), 5-13

(34)

34

Dries, N., Pepermans R., Hofmans J., & Rypens, L. (2009). Development and validation of an objective intra-organizational career success measure for managers. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 30, 543-560. doi: 10.1002/job.564

Eby L.T., Butts M., & Lockwood, A. (2003). Predictors of success in the era of the boundaryless career. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 698-708. doi: 10.1002/job.214

Echtelt, van P., & Hoff, S. (2008). Wel of niet aan het werk. Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau. Den Haag. Retrieved from http://www.raadwerkinkomen.nl

Furnham, A., Eracleaous, A., & Charmorro-Premuzic, T. (2009). Personality, motivation and job satisfaction: Hertzberg meets the Big Five. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24 (8), 765-779. doi: 10.1108/02683940910996789

Gelissen, J., & De Graaf, de, P.M. (2006). Personality, social background, and occupational career success. Elsevier, Social Science Research, 35, 702-726. doi:

10.1016/j.ssresearch.2005.06.005

Greller, M.M. (2006). Hours invested in professional development during late career as a function of career motivation and satisfaction. Career Development International,11 (6), 544-559

Hall, D.T. & Mirvis, P.H. (1995). The new career contract: developing the whole person at midlife and beyond. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47, 269-289

Hess, N., & Jepsen, D.M. (2009). Career stage and generational differences in psychological contracts. Career Development International, 14 (3), 261-283

Judge, T.A., Gerhardt, M.W., Bono, J.E., & Illies, R. (2002). Personality and leadership: a qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (4), 765-780. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.765

(35)

35

Judge, T.A., Higgins, C.A., Thoresen, C.J., & Barrick, M.R. (1999). The Big Five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel

Psychology, 52

Kootstra, G.J. (2004). Exploratory factor analysis: theory and application. Unpublished. Retrieved from:

http://www.let.rug.nl/~nerbonne/teach/rema-stats-meth-seminar/Factor-Analysis-Kootstra-04.PDF

Levinson, D.J., Darrow, C.M., Klein, E.B., Levinson, M.H., & McKee, B. (1978). The seasons of a man’s life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf

Lounsbury, J.W., Drost, A.W., Gibson, L.W., Hamrick, F.L., Loveland, J.M., & Sundstrom, E.D. (2003). An investigation of personality traits in relation to career satisfaction. Journal of Career Assessment, 11 (3), 287-307. doi: 10.1177/1069072703254501

Lounsbury, J.W., Gibson, L.W., Loveland, J.L., Steel, R.P., & Sundstrom, E.D. (2004). An investigation of intelligence and personality in relation to career satisfaction. Elsevier, Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 181-189. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2003.08.010

Melamed, T. (1996). Career success: an assessment of a gender-specific model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 217-242

Ng, T.W.H., Eby, L.T., Sorensen, K.L., & Feldman, D.C. (2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58, 367-408

Nicholoson, N., & De Waal-Andrews, W. (2005). Playing to win: biological imperatives, self-regulation, and trade-offs in the game of career success. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 137-154. doi: 10.1002/job.295