Influence of personality traits on job performance of public servantsAbstract
The study analyzes the influence of personality traits on the role performance of public servants and the intervention of performance quality and expertise. Data from a survey of 253 public servants from an institution that monitors the State’s jurisdictional function were analyzed using descriptive statistics and structural equation modeling. The findings reveal that, among the personality traits, agreeableness is the most prominent trait and neuroticism is the least prominent. The public servants indicated a high degree of satisfaction with their role performance (efficiency and effectiveness) and performance quality (ability to meet job requirements). Role performance is positively influenced only by extraversion, while performance quality is positively influenced by openness and extraversion, and negatively by neuroticism. A possible mediating effect of performance quality in the relationship between personality traits and role performance was observed for openness, extraversion and neuroticism, while agreeableness was not significant. The study contributes to the debate on the role of personality traits in the performance at public institutions. By extending the top management theory to the team, the scope was expanded from the strategic to the operational level, which allowed providing evidence of the role of personality traits in the role performance and the performance quality in a public institution. The effect of individual characteristics on performance sheds light on the relevance of enhancing them when allocating activities to public servants.
Keywords:
Personality traits; Role performance; Performance quality
Resumo
O estudo analisa a influência de traços de personalidade sobre o desempenho na função de servidores públicos e a interveniência da qualidade do desempenho e da expertise. Os dados da survey com 253 servidores públicos de uma instituição de fiscalização da função jurisdicional do Estado foram analisados utilizando estatísticas descritivas e modelagem de equações estruturais. Os resultados revelam que, entre os traços de personalidade, a maior proeminência é de amabilidade e a menor, neuroticismo. Os servidores públicos indicaram um elevado grau de satisfação com o seu desempenho na função (eficiência e eficácia) e qualidade do desempenho (capacidade de atender os requisitos do trabalho). O desempenho na função é influenciado positivamente apenas pela extroversão, enquanto a qualidade do desempenho é influenciada positivamente pela abertura e extroversão e negativamente pelo neuroticismo. Um possível efeito mediador da qualidade do desempenho na relação entre traços de personalidade e desempenho na função foi observado para abertura, extroversão e neuroticismo, enquanto a amabilidade não apresentou significância. O estudo contribui para o debate sobre o papel dos traços de personalidade no desempenho em instituições públicas. Ao estender a teoria do alto escalão para a equipe, ampliou-se o escopo do nível estratégico para o operacional, o que permitiu fornecer evidências do papel dos traços de personalidade no desempenho da função e na qualidade do desempenho. O efeito das características individuais no desempenho lança luz sobre a relevância de potencializá-las na alocação das atividades aos servidores públicos.
Palavras-chave:
Traços de personalidade; Desempenho na função; Qualidade do desempenho
Resumen
El estudio analiza la influencia de los rasgos de personalidad en el desempeño laboral de servidores públicos y la intervención de la calidad del desempeño y la experiencia. Los datos de la encuesta con 253 servidores públicos de una institución fiscalizadora de la función jurisdiccional del Estado se analizaron utilizando estadísticas descriptivas y modelos de ecuaciones estructurales. Los resultados revelan que, entre los rasgos de personalidad, el de mayor protagonismo es la amabilidad y el de menor, el neuroticismo. Los servidores públicos indicaron un alto grado de satisfacción con su desempeño en el puesto (eficiencia y eficacia) y la calidad del desempeño (capacidad para cumplir con los requisitos laborales). El desempeño laboral está influenciado positivamente solo por la extraversión, mientras que la calidad del desempeño está influenciada positivamente por la apertura y la extraversión y negativamente, por el neuroticismo. Un posible efecto mediador de la calidad del desempeño en la relación entre los rasgos de personalidad y el desempeño laboral se observó para la apertura, extraversión y neuroticismo, mientras que la amabilidad no fue significativa. El estudio contribuye al debate sobre el papel de los rasgos de personalidad en el desempeño en instituciones públicas. Al extender la teoría de la alta dirección al equipo, se amplió el alcance del nivel estratégico al operativo, lo que permitió aportar evidencia del papel de los rasgos de personalidad en el desempeño del rol y la calidad del desempeño. El efecto de las características individuales en el desempeño arroja luz sobre la relevancia de aprovecharlas en la asignación de actividades a los servidores públicos.
Palabras clave:
Rasgos de personalidad; Desempeño laboral; Calidad del desempeño
INTRODUCTION
Behavioral aspects associated with role performance in the workplace, such as personality traits, once considered exclusive to the field of psychology (Wright & Jackson, 2023), now require broader discussions due to their connections with other fields and the complexities of individuals and idiosyncratic organizational contexts, such as the public sector. Araujo et al. (2025) argue that proposing a model that incorporates the role of personality traits in the judgment and decision-making of professionals can help improve processes and the reliability of information. Although their focus is on the dark tetrad of personality traits and the specific context of auditing firms, it is assumed that the evidence can be transferred to the effects of individual characteristics of public servants on role performance (Fiirst & Beuren, 2021).
However, performance is a multidimensional concept with no standardized specification in the literature. Sonnentag and Frese (2002) distinguish three main approaches: the individual (individual characteristics as differentiators of performance); the situational (situational aspects as facilitators or inhibitors of performance); and regulation (describing the performance process). Borman and Motowidlo (1997) distinguish between task performance and contextual performance, associating task performance (more prescriptive) with skills and competencies of the individual, and contextual performance (more discretionary) with individual characteristics. This study focuses on job performance, a form of individual performance. Job performance is a key concern in organizational and work psychology due to its impact on individual performance and satisfaction at work (Sonnentag & Frese, 2002).
Debates on performance in the public sector have been expanding (Fiirst & Beuren, 2021; Gupta & Kumar, 2021). A different dynamic in the relationship between government and citizens was proposed by New Public Management, a movement characterized by the importation of private-sector ideas into the public sector, while respecting its idiosyncrasies (Cavalcante, 2019). There is growing interest among government officials in improving the quality of public services to meet citizen demands and generate social value (Struecker & Hoffmann, 2017), in such a way that the population perceives the benefits and values the services (Bankins & Waterhouse, 2019). This motivates public servants to improve their performance (Bresser-Pereira, 2017).
The literature suggests that individual characteristics influence job performance (Buchinger et al., 2023; Campbell et al., 1993). Assuming these characteristics signal differences in performance between individuals encourages the identification of determining factors (Campbell et al., 1993). Hambrick and Mason’s (1984) Upper Echelons Theory, though originally focused on top executive teams, supports the locus of this research. This theory posits that the demographic characteristics of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) can serve as proxies to predict behaviors and strategic decisions (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). The upper echelon acts according to personal interpretations in strategic decisions, which stem from their values, personality traits, and experiences (Hambrick, 2007). Therefore, the characteristics of the Top Management Team (TMT) can offer more complete explanations of performance (Hambrick, 2007).
Research into the effects of CEO demographic characteristics or of TMT diversity on organizational performance represents an advance regarding the seminal work of Hambrick and Mason (1984). However, the use of demographic characteristics as proxies to predict decision-making behavior remains prevalent (Wang et al., 2019). Based on a systematic review of Upper Echelons Theory, Sierra et al. (2019) suggest assessments through questionnaires and interviews. They highlight potential research avenues: (i) considering substitute proxies for demographic characteristics, such as personality traits, assuming they predict individual decisions; (ii) expanding research from CEO demographic characteristics and TMT diversity to team-level studies; and (iii) identifying personality traits and analyzing their effects on performance (Sierra et al., 2019).
The proposal to extend the scope of executive demographic characteristics to the entire team guides the phenomenon of interest in this study. In systematizing knowledge about the behavior of frontline public servants, Ferreira and Medeiros (2016) observed a variety of approaches, revealing theoretical fragmentation in the field and a lack of a conceptual behavior model. Moreover, although these approaches aim to understand behavior, few studies examine which functions involve discretion by frontline servants. The authors also identified gaps related to factors influencing decisions and actions, such as: relational (with users), personal (values and self-interest), and managerial (control systems, performance standards). This highlights the need to investigate behavioral determinants that can improve job performance and address public policies.
One such determinant is assumed to be the personality traits of public servants, which leads to the following research question: What is the influence of personality traits of public servants on role performance, and what is the potential mediating effect of performance quality in this relationship? Thus, the objective of this study is to analyze the influence of personality traits on the role performance of public servants, mediated by performance quality. It also examines the moderating effect of expertise on the relationship between performance quality and role performance, assuming that legal expertise may influence this relationship (Serra et al., 2016), given the research locus. A survey was conducted with public servants from an institution responsible for monitoring the State’s jurisdictional. Descriptive statistics were applied to the collected data, and the hypotheses were tested using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).
Research in the public sector proves relevant due to the limited literature on the effects of individual characteristics on job performance, despite the growing demand for increased efficiency and effectiveness (Fiirst & Beuren, 2021), as established by New Public Management (Cavalcante, 2019). Job performance, understood as performance quality and role performance (Chao et al., 2015), is the lens through which research in these institutions can advance (Gupta & Kumar, 2021). The relationship between individual characteristics, such as personality traits, and job performance can highlight areas of concern for managers seeking to motivate employees and even reduce turnover (Buchinger et al., 2023; Wright & Jackson, 2023). The relevance of this study lies in the central role of public servants in delivering quality public services and ensuring citizen satisfaction (Hupe & Hill, 2007).
The study contributes to the literature and managerial practice in the public sector in four main ways. First, it examines individual characteristics, particularly the personality traits of public servants (John & Srivastava, 1999). Sierra et al. (2019) point out that the preferential use of demographic characteristics as proxies for the strategic behavior of the chief executive or the executive team; thus, this study advances by investigating the influence of personality traits on performance. Second, it extends Upper Echelons Theory (Hambrick & Mason, 1984) to the team level, broadening its scope from strategic to operational levels. Third, it investigates the possible effect of personality traits (John & Srivastava, 1999) on performance quality and role performance (Chao et al., 2015). Fourth, linking personality traits to role performance enables greater accuracy in task allocation by managers to employees, respecting the idiosyncrasies of the public sector (Cavalcante, 2019).
This introduction precedes Section 2, which explores the theoretical framework of the study and supports the proposed hypotheses. Section 3 discusses the research method and procedures. Section 4 presents and discusses the results and findings of the research. Finally, Section 5 offers conclusions, with final considerations, theoretical and practical implications, and the study’s limitations and recommendations.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES
Personality traits
Personality traits are addressed in the literature from various theoretical perspectives, with different scopes and levels of abstraction (Sonnentag & Frese, 2002). There are multiple procedures for identifying individuals’ personality types (John & Srivastava, 1999). The assessment of personality traits has grown more complex over time (Buchinger et al., 2023). The models show variations (Pulkkinen, 1996), influenced by different occupation of the individuals.
This study adopts the Big Five personality traits model by John and Srivastava (1999), as it is widely used in research across various fields of knowledge. The model includes the following traits: i) extraversion (involving sociability and positive emotionality); (ii) agreeableness (including warmth and trust); (iii) conscientiousness (implying thinking before acting); (iv) neuroticism (referring to negative emotionality); and (v) openness, which describes the individual’s mental and experiential life. Personality traits predict outcomes (Wright & Jackson, 2023).
The literature supports the idea that individual characteristics influence job performance (Campbell et al., 1993; Wright & Jackson, 2023). However, research (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991) has shown that personality traits differ in how they relate to job performance. Conscientiousness stands out as the only general predictor of job performance. Agreeableness and neuroticism predict performance in teamwork. Extraversion is typical for sales roles and managerial positions. Understanding these traits is important, as they can significantly impact job performance (John & Srivastava, 1999).
Job performance
Job performance involves behavioral aspects—the individual’s behavior in the work situation—and results—the consequence of the individual’s behavior—, as long as the individual’s behavior is measurable and the results are relevant to the organizational objectives (Campbell et al., 1993). They point out three determinants of performance: (i) declarative knowledge (skills, personality, interests, education, training, etc.); (ii) procedural knowledge and skills (cognitive, psychomotor, physical, self-management, and interpersonal skills); and (iii) motivation (effort level and persistence). However, job performance is not defined by the individual’s actions alone, but rather by the process of judgment and evaluation (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997).
Job performance is distinguished by Chao et al. (2015) between performance quality and role performance. Borman and Motowidlo (1997) referred to these respectively as contextual performance—which is related to the individual’s personality and motivation, being more discretionary and extra-role—and task performance—which is related to the individual’s capability, being more prescriptive and tied to role-specific behavior. Indeed, the former is predominantly a function of personality, while the latter is predominantly a function of cognitive ability (Campbell et al., 1993).
Evidence allows us to infer that both forms of performance can be easily distinguished in the empirical field. Performance represents a behavioral and outcome measure in empirical field (Fiirst & Beuren, 2021; Sonnentag & Frese, 2002), although this convergence is not consolidated in the conceptual field. Campbell et al. (1993) define performance as what an organization hires a person to do well. For Williams and Anderson (1991), job performance is the extent to which a person fulfills job requirements.
Despite the absence of a single definition, there is consensus on the need for performance definitions to differentiate between action and outcome (Campbell et al., 1993). Action refers to what a person does in his job (behavior), while outcome refers to the consequence of the person’s behavior (action) (Sonnentag & Frese, 2002). Segregating both in performance is challenging because individual behavior is reflected in the outcome. Chao et al. (2015) segregated job performance into efficiency and effectiveness (doing the job well) and quality (being qualified for the job).
Sonnentag and Frese (2002) found a significant volume of articles on performance in meta-analyses during the two decades prior to their review, with about half the research focusing on individual performance, usually as a dependent variable. Most studies examined differences in performance between individuals and explanatory factors. A significant portion of articles dealt with potential predictors and processes associated with job performance.
Chao et al. (2015) observed contradictory results regarding job performance, as some research supports a positive linear relationship between workplace stress and performance, while others support a negative linear relationship. They argue that balance can stimulate skills and improve performance, as too little stress can lead to performance decline, while stress beyond individuals’ limits worsens performance.
Job performance was measured by Chao et al. (2015) using self-assessments, common in research (e.g., Beuren et al., 2015; Martins et al., 2023; Suave & Aguiar, 2021) that evaluate job performance. Suave and Aguiar (2021), for example, measured job performance using the research instrument by Venkatesh and Blaskovich (2012). Although useful for describing performance, Chao et al. (2015) recommend combining self-assessment with hierarchical evaluation because the hybrid approach fosters reflection.
Research hypotheses
Meta-analyses have pointed to the prevalence of articles addressing performance in relation to individual differences (Sonnentag & Frese, 2002). Considering that differences in performance between individuals can be explained by individual differences such as skills, personality traits, and motivation (Campbell et al., 1993) implies assuming that some individuals have characteristics that enable superior performance. Campbell et al. (1993) propose distinguishing between components of performance, determinants of those components, and predictors of the determinants.
Sonnentag and Frese (2002) emphasize that demographic data and personality traits have supported research on performance components, determinants of these components, and predictors of the determinants. They highlight that the determinants of performance components consist of declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge and skills, and motivation. They further characterize declarative knowledge as a function of skills, personality, education, training, and experience.
Araujo et al. (2025) analyzed the moderating effect of dark personality traits on the relationship between the conditioning factors of the theory of planned behavior and judgment and decision-making. The results of the multi-group analysis revealed that dark personality traits negatively influence the relationship between subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and judgment and decision-making. They point out that professionals with high dark personality traits tend to show insensitivity, impulsivity, and manipulation, while these traits also enhance skepticism in judgment.
Buchinger et al. (2023) investigated motivational aspects of personality, considering the co-development of life goals and the longitudinal association with the Big Five personality traits, moderated by age, gender, academic background, regional socialization, and perceived control. Broad life goals were found to be associated with personality development throughout life, while changes in specific goals were associated with changes in traits in specific age ranges.
Meta-analyses have indicated that the effect of personality traits on job performance varies between different jobs (Sonnentag & Frese, 2002). For example, Barrick and Mount (1991) found significant relationships of the personality traits neuroticism and conscientiousness with job performance. It is observed that personality traits are associated with different constructs consequently, show non-convergent results. However, there is evidence that personality traits have distinct effects. Thus, it is proposed that:
H1: Personality traits (openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and neuroticism) influence job performance (performance quality and in-role performance) in distinct ways.
Meta-analyses on performance point to a significant relationship between cognitive ability and job performance (Sonnentag & Frese, 2002). According to Schmidt and Hunter (1998), individuals with high cognitive abilities perform better compared to those with low cognitive abilities. However, they recognize the existence of predictors or intervening variables in cognitive ability that are reflected in the acquisition of knowledge and skills and that enhance job performance.
Sumadi et al. (2024) investigated the impact of emotional intelligence and personality traits on achieving success in leadership positions. They predicted a negative association between emotional intelligence and neuroticism, and a positive one for the other Big Five personality traits. The results indicated an association between individual differences, leadership, and performance. The study also supported considering the control variables age and managerial experience.
Research is not unanimous in supporting personality traits as responsible for differences in performance among individuals. According to Sonnentag and Frese (2002), meta-analyses on the relationships between personality traits and job performance show that a large portion of studies did not present statistical significance. Therefore, it is assumed that the association between personality traits (openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and neuroticism) and job performance (role performance and performance quality) may not be direct.
Performance quality concerns how activities are carried out, including their level of accuracy, while role performance considers the individual’s overall effectiveness in fulfilling his job tasks and responsibilities (Campbell et al., 1993). Both do not overlap, although they may be related in such a way that one influences the other, leading to the postulation that:
H2: The relationship between personality traits (openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and neuroticism) and role performance is mediated by performance quality.
Individual performance may change over time (Buchinger et al., 2023; Sonnentag & Frese, 2002), mainly due to learning. Initially, performance varies as a function of the time devoted to a specific job, and after a certain point the effect of time is less significant (Schmidt & Hunter, 1988). Therefore, it varies due to changes in subjacent processes, given that skill acquisition is affected by changes in procedural knowledge and psychomotor skills (Buchinger et al., 2023).
Campbell et al. (1993) researched capacity and experience as predictors of professional knowledge and competencies but did not find a direct effect on job performance. Expertise does not seem to be an antecedent of performance quality but may act as an intervening variable in role performance. Serra et al. (2016) investigated whether experience and competence of top executives predict performance, considering social and demographic characteristics. Diverse experiences showed no significance; however, specific experiences negatively influenced performance, while formal education did not impact performance.
The research context may have influenced the results, as specific experiences indicated a negative influence on performance and diverse experiences did not present statistical significance. Considering the locus of this research, whose activity consists of legal knowledge, it is assumed that expertise in the legal field of the employees influences role performance. The presumption is that expertise can alter the strength of the relationship between performance quality and role performance, as follows:
H3: The relationship between performance quality and role performance is moderated by expertise.
Figure 1 presents the theoretical model and highlights the research hypotheses:
The model proposes direct relationships between personality traits and role performance (H1) and mediation by performance quality (H2). It also postulates moderation by expertise between performance quality and role performance (H3).
METODOLOGICAL PROCEDURES
Sample and data collection
A survey was conducted with public servants from an institution responsible for monitoring the State’s jurisdictional function. This institution was chosen due to: (i) concern with the efficiency/effectiveness in the allocation of public resources; (ii) evaluation of public servants’ performance; and (iii) identification of factors to improve work performance. Initial contacts were made with the human resources department to explain the purpose of the research and the ethical procedures, such as confidentiality and the absence of any harm to respondents in case of withdrawal. To ensure confidentiality, the management decided that the completed questionnaires would be sent through the internal communication system with exclusive access granted only to the research coordinator.
A total of 253 valid questionnaires were received, representing approximately 25% of the total commissioned and permanent staff working at the institution. The sample size is sufficient for the research purposes and to ensure robustness in modeling, as determined by the software G*Power 3.1, with a power of 0.80, medium effect size (f²) of 0.15, and the number of variables connected to the dependent variable.
Constructs and research instrument
The constructs of personality traits (John & Srivastava, 1999) and job performance (Chao et al., 2015) were measured using instruments validated in previous studies. After translating the statements from English into Portuguese and adapting them to the context of this research, two researchers in the field and two employees from the surveyed institution evaluated the wording suitability and suggested some minor wording.
Personality traits were measured with the instrument developed by John and Srivastava (1999), adapted for the public sector context. This instrument consists of: openness (10 items); agreeableness (9 items); conscientiousness (9 items); extraversion (8 items); and neuroticism (8 items). Respondents were asked to mark the option that best represented their condition on a scale from 1 = strongly disagree, to 7 = strongly agree. The statements were numbered and mixed in the questionnaire, including reverse-scored items, to avoid biasing the responses.
Job performance was measured with the instrument adapted from Chao et al. (2015), replacing the term “patient” with “citizen” and focusing on the organizational context of the public sector, as well as changing the scale from 1 = strongly disagree, to 7 = strongly agree. The construct consists of two variables: role performance (items 1 to 5, efficiency and effectiveness at work); and performance quality (items 6 to 10, satisfaction with job performance).
The variable expertise was included in the model as a moderator between performance quality and role performance, assigned a value of 1 if the respondent has a lato sensu postgraduate course in the legal area and 0 otherwise. In line with Serra et al. (2016), who considered top executives’ experience as predictors of performance, it is assumed that the public servant acquired legal knowledge in the Master of Business Administration (MBA) that boosts role performance.
Control variables were included in the model. Institutional affiliation classified servants as either tenured or commissioned, with 0 = commissioned and 1 = permanent. Commissioned servants tend to show better job performance due to the satisfaction of working as commissioned staff (Serra et al., 2016). Hierarchical level was measured by the servants’ position in the organizational chart, assigning 0 = intermediate/lower level and 1 = upper level. At higher hierarchical levels, tasks tend to be more complex; thus, there is more support and autonomy, which can increase performance (Jermias & Setiawan, 2008). Consistent with Buchinger et al. (2023), control variables included: gender (0 = male and 1 = female), age (0 = ≤ 30 years and 1 = > 30 years), field of study (0 = Law and 1 = other fields), and managerial position (0 = yes and 1 = no). Females may be more sensitive to emotions (Zhang et al., 2023) and gender pressures, leading women to be more agreeable, careful, and attentive.
Analysis procedures
In data analysis, the demographic profile was determined by response frequency. The two research constructs were initially analyzed individually, highlighting mean, median, and standard deviation. This data allowed the analysis of: (i) the relevance of the items to characterize respondents’ personality traits; and (ii) the statements aimed at measuring how satisfied respondents are with their job performance.
The influence of personality traits on performance quality and role performance was analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), using SmartPLS 4. The paths for the proposed relationships were examined, including both direct and indirect effects. In the latter, mediation effects were tested between independent and dependent variables, and moderation effects, which through interaction can strengthen or weaken relationships (Hair et al., 2022).
Cross-sectional studies with simultaneous data collection from the same source are subject to Common Method Bias (CMB), which can be mitigated with precautions, as in this research, informing respondents that there are no right or wrong answers (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The Harman’s single-factor test was applied to examine whether data showed common method bias limitations; the test showed that no single factor explained 50% or more of the total variance of the study variables.
Non-response bias indicates possible sampling distortions and was measured using the firsts-lasts method, where late responders represent those who chose not to respond (Wåhlberg & Poom, 2015). The first respondents (10%) were compared with the last respondents (10%), and the t-test of independent samples indicated no differences between the two groups at a 5% significance level. Therefore, both tests suggest that these biases are not representative in the sample and, consequently, are not a concern in the analyses.
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Table 1 presents the demographic data of the respondents, specifically personal, professional and educational information:
Professional demographic data reveal an almost equal institutional affiliation between commissioned servants (51%) and permanent servants (49%). The majority do not hold management positions (88%). According to the hierarchical levels established in the organizational chart, administrative and operational bodies stand out (54%). The most highlighted roles are: assistant (42%), technician (17%), and analyst (13%). The length of service is concentrated between 2 and 10 years (64%), indicating a young workforce with signs of renewal, as 18% have been in the role for 2 years or less—an observation reinforced by 9% having more than 20 years of service.
Personal demographic data indicate that the majority are female (61%). Age groups between 20 and 35 years (62%) predominate, which may explain why most have 10 years or less in the institution. The low presence in age groups over 40 years (22%) supports the characterization of a young workforce. Academic qualifications show that most (66%) have a lato sensu specialization and/or MBA in the field of Law (69%).
Descriptive statistics
Personality traits were assessed using 44 items from John and Srivastava (1999). Table 2 shows statistics for the items (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree):
Respondents perceive that most of the 44 items apply to their situation. The highest mean scores are observed in the personality trait of agreeableness, followed by conscientiousness and extraversion. The lowest mean scores are found in the personality trait of neuroticism. Although these highlighted traits are similar to those found by Buchinger et al. (2023), caution is advised, since the proposed relationships and intervening variables differ.
Prudence is recommended in the analyses because there was no focus on particular situations with deeper and/or contrasting reflections. Typically, an individual has one or another more pronounced trait, but not an absence of the other traits. Moreover, respondents all work in the same institution, which may imply organizational identity and similar behaviors.
Table 3 presents role performance (efficiency and effectiveness in task execution) and performance quality (the individual’s ability to meet job requirements) (Chao et al., 2015). This construct was measured by indicating satisfaction with their job performance (1 = totally dissatisfied, to 7 = totally satisfied).
Respondents reported high levels of satisfaction with their job performance, both in terms of job performance and performance quality. These values correspond to self-assessment, a common form of performance measurement (Beuren et al., 2015; Suave & Aguiar, 2021), but one that requires caution. The absence of a formal performance evaluation mechanism within the institution prevented cross-checking self-assessments with official evaluations, a hybrid approach recommended by Chao et al. (2015). This may have influenced the assignment of high values to job performance, although these values might also be consistent with performance.
Measurement model and structural model
In the measurement model, internal consistency and convergent and discriminant validity are assessed (Hair et al., 2022). For personality traits, items from openness (4 items), agreeableness (5 items), extraversion (3 items), and neuroticism (3 items) were excluded, as well as the construct conscientiousness, due to failure to meet reliability and validity criteria. Table 4 presents the results:
The constructs show internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha (α), Composite Reliability (CR), and rho_A (ρA) (≥ 0.70) (Hair et al., 2022). Convergent validity is supported by adequate Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values (≥ 0.50). Although the coefficient of 0.864 between performance quality and role performance is higher than the AVE of the latter, discriminant validity by the Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio of Correlations (HTMT) criterion shows satisfactory indices (< 0.90) (Hair et al., 2022). The same happens to the Fornell-Larcker criterion, as the square roots of the AVEs are higher than the correlations between constructs.
The adequacy of the measurement model allows the analyses to proceed. For hypothesis testing, bootstrapping with 10,000 re-samples was conducted, using bias-corrected confidence intervals and test at 10%. Table 5 presents the analyses.
Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) confirms the absence of multicollinearity, with values ranging between 1.00 and 2.27 (Hair et al., 2022). The coefficient of determination (R²) indicates that 28.7% of the variance in performance quality and 66.4% of the variance in role performance are explained. The overall model redundancy (Q²) shows values above zero for the dependent constructs (Hair et al., 2022). The Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) and Normed Fit Index (NFI) indicate good model fit, with coefficients below 0.08 and 0.90, respectively (Henseler et al., 2016). Therefore, the structural model presents satisfactory assumptions and supports the hypotheses.
Discussion of results
In hypothesis H1, the influence of personality traits on role performance was confirmed only for extraversion (0.096, p < 0.10), while openness, agreeableness, and neuroticism showed no statistical significance. It is noteworthy that the extraversion trait seems more pronounced among commissioned servants than among permanent public servants. Performance quality, on the other hand, was influenced by openness (0.181, p < 0.01), extraversion (0.195, p < 0.05), and neuroticism (-0.214, p < 0.10), but not by agreeableness, which showed no statistical significance. Furthermore, performance quality was statistically significant over role performance (0.802, p < 0.01).
It is observed that personality traits influence work performance in different ways. Role performance is positively influenced only by extraversion, while performance quality is positively influenced by openness and extraversion, and negatively by neuroticism. These differences may result from individual differences (Sonnentag & Frese, 2002; Sumadi et al., 2024). Life goals impact personality, which may cause one personality trait to stand out more than others (Buchinger et al., 2023). In this regard, Campbell et al. (1993) propose distinguishing between performance components, determinants of those components, and predictors of the determinants.
For H2, the mediation of performance quality in the relationship between personality traits and role performance was confirmed for openness (0.145, p < 0.10), extraversion (0.157, p < 0.05), and neuroticism (-0.172, p < 0.10), while agreeableness was not statistically significant. The literature is inconclusive about whether personality traits explain individual differences in performance. Barrick and Mount (1991) found significant relationships, suggesting that individual differences can explain performance variance. Conversely, the meta-analysis by Sonnentag and Frese (2002) indicated that most studies did not find statistical significance. These divergent results may stem from the lack of a consolidated performance definition in the literature (Chao et al., 2015), as well as the different contexts of the studies.
Moderation by expertise between performance quality and role performance was confirmed but with a negative coefficient (-0.208, p < 0.01), thus H3 was not supported. Given that 1 = holds a lato sensu postgraduate degree in law and 0 = does not, the negative coefficient indicates that having a postgraduate law degree reduces the impact of performance quality on role performance, ash the direct relationship between the two is positive. Possible explanations include: (i) servants with postgraduate law degrees may have acquired knowledge and skills that potentially increase formality and bureaucracy in their work, making them less flexible to the demands of the job; (ii) lack of legal knowledge might be compensated with training at work, given the demands of the job; (iii) since most respondents have legal training, this may not be seen as a performance differentiator; and (iv) these servants may have been assigned to roles where other factors (e.g., strategic, political) influence performance.
These findings are supported by Sonnentag and Frese (2002), who identified in their meta-analysis a significant relationship between cognitive ability and job performance. They align with Schmidt and Hunter’s (1998) view that individuals with high cognitive abilities perform better. They also correspond with Buchinger et al. (2023), who associate skill acquisition with changes in procedural knowledge and psychomotor skills. The results partially corroborate Serra et al. (2016), who found a negative effect of specific top executive experiences on performance, while diverse experiences showed no statistical significance.
Control variables suggest that commissioned public servants may have superior performance quality compared to permanent servants. Literature points to the possibility of better performance due to the gratitude of commissioned servants for their opportunity (Bankins & Waterhouse, 2019). Permanent servants have job stability and may diminish their efforts over time. However, institutional affiliation does not seem to impact role performance, as it was not statistically significant.
Hierarchical position also seems not to affect performance quality, as it was not statistically significant. Possibly, upper hierarchical levels do not differ from intermediate/lower ones because performance quality permeates organizational culture. Conversely, upper hierarchical level servants show better role performance, perhaps due to greater responsibilities of the upper-level managers. These findings suggest that institutional affiliation and hierarchical level affect performance quality and role performance differently, which requires managerial attention.
Other control variables, personal (gender and age), professional (management position), and education (academic background) were included but showed no statistical significance. These results differ from previous studies in different contexts. Serra et al. (2016) found partial support for various demographic data. Buchinger et al. (2023) and Pulkkinen (1996) observed significant variations in the relationship of personality dimensions and demographics. The public sector has particularities that may explain the divergent results.
The findings of the research reflect, according to Hambrick and Mason’s (1984) upper echelons theory, that leadership activities in organizations are shared, and that cognitive abilities and competencies of the team influence decision-making and behaviors that contribute to organizational performance (Hambrick, 2007). They also suggest that the demographic characteristics of the team signal strategic movements toward organizational performance (Sierra, 2019).
CONCLUSIONS
Descriptive analyses reveal that, among the personality traits studied, agreeableness was the most prominent and neuroticism the least prominent. Respondents’ perceptions of their job performance were high, both for role performance and performance quality. The analysis of the proposed relationships showed that role performance is influenced only by the personality trait extraversion, while performance quality is influenced by the traits openness, extraversion, and neuroticism, but not by agreeableness (H1). A possible mediating effect of performance quality was observed in the relationship between the personality traits openness, extraversion, and neuroticism on role performance, while agreeableness showed no statistical significance (H2). However, no moderating effect of expertise was found between performance quality and role performance (H3). These findings reinforce Schmidt and Hunter’s (1998) conclusions about the existence of predictors or intervening factors in cognitive ability related to knowledge/skill acquisition that enhance job performance.
The research results have implications for the literature by showing that personality traits reveal strategic behaviors, in line with upper echelons theory (Hambrick, 2007). The personality traits studied showed different influences on performance quality and role performance, in a way that desirable traits were positively associated; undesirable traits (e.g., neuroticism) were negatively associated; while others (e.g., agreeableness) were not statistically significant. Thus, the literature is advanced (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Sonnentag & Frese, 2002) by identifying personality traits that differ in their relationship with job performance (Wright & Jackson, 2023). In some studies, personality traits predict outcomes (Sonnentag & Frese, 2002); in others, they differ in job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Buchinger et al., 2023).
Implications for managerial practice are also observed, consistent with upper echelons theory, indicating that sharing leadership activities enhances the cognitive abilities and competencies of the team toward better job performance. The influence of personality traits on performance quality and role performance highlights the importance of leveraging individual differences toward organizational goals, as well as considering individual characteristics when allocating tasks. It is important to note that personality traits are not mutually exclusive (Buchinger et al., 2023; John & Srivastava, 1999), so one or some traits may be more prominent (Wright & Jackson, 2023). Finally, the research findings contribute by demonstrating alignment with New Public Management, which has efficiency as a principle (Blonski et al., 2017); the emphasis is on enhancing performance (Struecker & Hoffmann, 2017).
Limitations stem from the design of the survey conducted within a public sector institution. Potential unobserved biases may have affected the findings. The generalizability of results is limited, as similar institutions may differ. In-depth research (e.g., case studies) could assess the influence of these traits on performance quality and role performance. Other instruments for measuring personality traits may be used, such as psychometric cognition assessments. The John and Srivastava (1999) model for measuring personality traits required adjustments, indicating the need for adaptation for application in the public sector. Developing performance metrics was challenging, as it required considering the idiosyncrasies of the public sector (Groen et al., 2017). However, precautions taken regarding common method bias, non-response bias, and the validity and reliability parameters of the theoretical model help mitigate the study’s limitations.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Ilse Maria Beuren acknowledges that this work was supported by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) and the Foundation for Research and Innovation Support of the State of Santa Catarina (FAPESC), Brazil.
Silvana Mannes Meurer acknowledges that this work was supported by the University Scholarship Program of Santa Catarina (UNIEDU), Brazil.
We thank the manuscript’s ad hoc reviewers and the editor for their constructive comments and guidance. We also thank the useful comments received from participants of the 14th UFSC Congress on Controllership and Finance.
References
-
Araujo, L. C. O., De Luca, M. M. M., & Araujo, P. G. L. (2025). Traços de personalidade sombria e a teoria do comportamento planejado no julgamento e tomada de decisão do auditor. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 65(2), e2024-0289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0034-759020250205x
» https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-759020250205x -
Bankins, S., & Waterhouse, J. (2019). Organizational identity, image, and reputation: examining the influence on perceptions of employer attractiveness in public sector organizations. International Journal of Public Administration, 42(3), 218-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2018.1423572
» https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2018.1423572 -
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x
» https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x -
Beuren, I. M., Altoé, S. M. L., & Dal Vesco, D. G. (2015). Percepção de justiça e comportamento de cidadania organizacional: um estudo na perspectiva do sistema de mensuração de desempenho estratégico. Cuadernos de Administración, 28(51), 133-157. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.cao28-51.pjcc
» https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.cao28-51.pjcc -
Blonski, F., Prates, R. C., Costa, M., & Vizeu, F. (2017). O controle gerencial na perspectiva do New Public Management: o caso da adoção do Balanced Scorecard na Receita Federal do Brasil.Administração Pública e Gestão Social ,1(1), 15-30. https://doi.org/10.21118/apgs.v1i1.4912
» https://doi.org/10.21118/apgs.v1i1.4912 -
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: the meaning for personnel selection research.Human Performance, 10(2), 99-109. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1002_3
» https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1002_3 -
Bresser-Pereira, L. C. (2017). Reforma gerencial e legitimação do estado social. Revista de Administração Pública, 51(1), 147-156. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7612166376
» https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7612166376 -
Buchinger, L., Entringer, T. M., Richter, D., Wagner, G. G., Gerstorf, D., & Bleidorn, W. (2023). Codevelopment of life goals and the Big Five personality traits across adulthood and old age.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 126(2), 346-368. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000477
» https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000477 - Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. In E. Schmitt & W.C. Borman (Eds.). Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 35-70). Jossey-Bass.
-
Cavalcante, P. L. (2019). Trends in public administration after hegemony of the New Public Management: a literature review. Revista do Serviço Público, 70(2), 195-218. https://doi.org/10.21874/rsp.v70i2.3212
» https://doi.org/10.21874/rsp.v70i2.3212 -
Chao, M. C., Jou, R. C., Liao, C. C., & Kuo, C. W. (2015). Workplace stress, job satisfaction, job performance, and turnover intention of health care workers in rural Taiwan. Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health, 27(2), NP1827-NP1836. https://doi.org/10.1177/1010539513506604
» https://doi.org/10.1177/1010539513506604 -
Groen, B. A., Wouters, M. J., & Wilderom, C. P. (2017). Employee participation, performance metrics, and job performance: a survey study based on self-determination theory. Management Accounting Research, 36, 51-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2016.10.001
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2016.10.001 -
Gupta, A., & Kumar, S. (2021). Comparing the performance of public and private enterprises: case for a reappraisal - evidence from India. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 34(1), 87-100. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-04-2020-0117
» https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-04-2020-0117 -
Ferreira, V. R. S., & Medeiros, J. J. (2016). Fatores que moldam o comportamento dos burocratas de nível de rua no processo de implementação de políticas públicas. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, 14(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1679-395129522
» https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-395129522 -
Fiirst, C., & Beuren, I. M. (2021). Influence of contingency factors on the socioeconomic performance of local governments. Brazilian Journal of Public Administration, 55(6), 1355-1368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0034-76120200827
» https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-76120200827 - Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage Publishing.
-
Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: an update. Academy of Management Review 32(2), 334-343. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159303
» https://doi.org/10.2307/20159303 -
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. (1984). Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193-206. https://doi.org/10.2307/258434
» https://doi.org/10.2307/258434 -
Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P.A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0382
» https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0382 -
Hupe, P., & Hill, M. (2007). Street-level bureaucracy and public accountability. Public Administration, 85(2), 279-299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00650.x
» https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00650.x -
Jermias, J., & Setiawan, T. (2008). The moderating effects of hierarchy and control systems on the relationship between budgetary participation and performance. The International Journal of Accounting, 43(3), 268-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intacc.2008.06.009
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intacc.2008.06.009 - John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.).Handbook of personality: theory and research(pp. 102-138). Guilford Press.
-
Martins, A. D., Euzebio, L. D. C., & Beuren, I. M. (2023). Perception of organizational justice and home office work performance: influence of affective commitment. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, 25(3), 373-386. https://doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v25i3.4231
» https://doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v25i3.4231 -
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
» https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 -
Pulkkinen, L. (1996). Female and male personality styles: a typological and developmental analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1288-1306. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1288
» https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1288 -
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings.Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262-274. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262
» https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262 -
Serra, F. R., Tres, G., & Ferreira, M. P. (2016). The “CEO effect” on the performance of Brazilian companies: an empirical study using measurable characteristics. European Management Review, 13(3), 193-205. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12079
» https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12079 -
Sierra, J. C. V., Serra, F. A. R., Guerrazzi, L. A. C., & Teixeira, J. E. (2019). Revisão sistemática sobre a influência dos executivos no desempenho das empresas na perspectiva da teoria do alto escalão. Future Studies Research Journal, 11(2), 216-240. https://doi.org/10.24023/FUTUREJOURNAL/2175-825/2019.V11I2.442
» https://doi.org/10.24023/FUTUREJOURNAL/2175-825/2019.V11I2.442 -
Sonnentag, S., & Frese, M. (2002). Performance concepts and performance theory. In S. Sonnentag (Ed.), Psychological management of individual performance (pp. 3-25). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470013419.ch1
» https://doi.org/10.1002/0470013419.ch1 -
Struecker, D. R., & Hoffmann, M. G. (2017). Participação social nos serviços públicos: caracterização do estado da arte por meio da bibliometria e da revisão sistemática. REGE. Revista de Gestão, 24(4), 371-380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rege.2017.03.008
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rege.2017.03.008 -
Suave, R., & Aguiar, A. B. (2021). Liderança, estilo de pensamento criativo e incentivos para o desempenho no trabalho em startups. Advances in Scientific and Applied Accounting, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.14392/asaa.2021140210
» https://doi.org/10.14392/asaa.2021140210 -
Sumadi, M. A., Sial, M. S., Gandolfi, F., & Comite, U. (2024). Impact of Big 5 personality & intelligence on transformational leadership process and managerial performance: a case of the Middle East Gulf Region. Brazilian Business Review, 21(2), e20221349. https://doi.org/10.15728/bbr.2022.1349.pt
» https://doi.org/10.15728/bbr.2022.1349.pt -
Venkatesh, R., & Blaskovich, J. (2012). The mediating effect of psychological capital on the budget participation-job performance relationship. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 24(1), 159-175. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar50202
» https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar50202 -
Wåhlberg, A. E., & Poom, L. (2015). An empirical test of nonresponse bias in internet surveys. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37(6), 336-347. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2015.1111212
» https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2015.1111212 -
Wang, D., Su, Z., & Guo, H. (2019). Top management team conflict and exploratory innovation: The mediating impact of market orientation.Industrial Marketing Management,82, 87-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.02.014
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.02.014 -
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601-617. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305.
» https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305 -
Wright, A. J., & Jackson, J. J. (2023). Do changes in personality predict life outcomes?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 125(6), 1495-1518. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000472
» https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000472 -
Zhang, Y., Rong, S., Dunlop, E., Jiang, R., Zhang, Z., & Tang, J. Q. (2023). Modeling the influence of individual differences on knowledge hiding. Journal of Knowledge Management, 27(6), 1637-1659. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2021-0840
» https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2021-0840
-
DATA AVAILABILITY
The dataset supporting the results of this study is not publicly available due to containing information that compromises the privacy of the research participants and the privacy assured to the respondents and the institution where they work.
-
REVIEWERS
REVIEWERS Luiz Anjos (Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife / PE - Brazil). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7375-540X
-
REVIEWERS
Vilmar Antonio Tondolo (Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas / RS - Brazil). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3116-2585
-
PEER REVIEW REPORT
The peer review report is available at this URL: https://periodicos.fgv.br/rap/article/view/94673
-
13
[Translated version]. Note: All quotes in English translated by this article’s translator.
Edited by
The dataset supporting the results of this study is not publicly available due to containing information that compromises the privacy of the research participants and the privacy assured to the respondents and the institution where they work.
Source: Elaborated by the authors.