Association between the five-factor model of personality and work engagement: a meta-analysis

verifiedrich profile · Industrial Health · 2021

FUKUZAKI, Toshiki; IWATA, Noboru

10.2486/indhealth.2021-0051 · CrossRef: verified

How this was studied

paradigm: positivistpurpose: explanatory causaldesign: meta analytic synthesisidentification: nonetime: cross sectionaldata: quantitative survey

A meta-analytic synthesis — it pools many primary studies rather than running a single design, so there is no single-study diagram.

analysis: meta analysis · validity (validity): internal unclear · external addressed · construct addressed · statistical addressed · classifier confidence 0.85

What this article reports

The findings we extracted from this work, normalized into Principia’s relationship form (X → Y). Each feeds the synthesized models below.

neuroticismwork engagement

r = -0.36 · k=26 · grade A · unverified

conscientiousnesswork engagement

r = 0.41 · k=34 · grade A · unverified

agreeablenesswork engagement

r = 0.27 · k=20 · grade A · unverified

extraversionwork engagement

r = 0.38 · k=26 · grade A · unverified

Models this article informs

The meta-analytic priors this article contributes evidence to — its place in the broader synthesis.

In the authors’ words

The article’s own abstract.

The purposes of this meta-analysis were (1) to examine the associations between work engagement (WE) and the personality dimensions of five-factor model and (2) to determine how much variance in WE is explained by these five factors. We performed a database search for studies related to personality traits and WE, and 36 papers that reported correlation coefficients were selected for the meta-analysis. After correcting for publication bias using the trim-and-fill method, conscientiousness had the strongest association with WE (ρ=0.41), followed by extraversion and openness to experience (0.38), neuroticism (−0.36), and agreeableness (0.27). Moreover, 30% of the WE variance could be explained by the five-factor model (R2=0.33, 95%CI=0.26–0.49) according to a path analysis using the weighted average correlation for unreliability. This proportion was higher than that from a previous meta-analysis of job satisfaction and job performance and was lower than that of personality and WE. Thus, to enhance WE, it is necessary to evaluate both the personality and the psychosocial work environment in detail.

What the literature says about it

Attributed, open-access quotes from other works that cite this article, plus the citation-graph verdict tally. Corroborations and disputes, in one place — the honest-broker view.

1 supporting

Ancillary research

Neighbouring works in the citation graph around this article.

Assembled from Principia’s registry — bibliographic record, extracted effect sizes, the models they inform, and open-access citing literature.