Neuroticism and Job Performance: What Meta-Analyses Show
Updated: Oct 8
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 30, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Neuroticism is associated with job performance, but the relationship is probabilistic, modest on average, and strongly dependent on what counts as performance and what kind of work is being studied. The best broad quantitative synthesis to date combined 54 meta-analyses, 2,028 samples or effects, and 554,778 participants. It estimated a correlation of about ρ = −.15 between neuroticism and job performance, meaning that higher neuroticism was associated with somewhat lower average performance across the aggregated literature. Zell and Lesick (2022) reported a stronger neuroticism–performance association for job performance than for academic performance, but the result remains an average association rather than a rule about any individual worker.
That distinction matters. Neuroticism in the Big Five describes a broad personality dimension involving greater proneness to negative emotion, threat sensitivity, worry, emotional reactivity, and vulnerability to stress. Emotional stability is commonly treated as the opposite pole or reverse-scored version of the same broad dimension in occupational research. Neither term is a psychiatric diagnosis. A person can score high in neuroticism and perform extremely well, and a person can score low in neuroticism and perform poorly.
Short Answer
Meta-analyses support a small-to-moderate average relationship in which higher neuroticism tends to be associated with lower job performance and higher emotional stability tends to be associated with better job performance. The direction is fairly consistent across major syntheses, but the size varies across occupations, performance criteria, instruments, samples, and statistical corrections. Conscientiousness is generally the more consistent Big Five predictor across jobs; emotional stability becomes more or less relevant depending on the demands of the occupation and the criterion being measured. Barrick, Mount, and Judge (2001) and Wilmot and Ones (2021) both show why a single universal effect size is an incomplete description.
The practical interpretation is therefore narrow and important: neuroticism is one statistical correlate of performance among many. It does not identify a “bad employee,” establish a ceiling on achievement, diagnose anxiety or another disorder, or justify deterministic career predictions.
What Neuroticism and Job Performance Mean in This Research
Neuroticism is a dimensional personality trait
In contemporary personality science, neuroticism is a continuous dimension. People differ by degree rather than falling into two natural categories called neurotic and non-neurotic. Big Five instruments operationalize the dimension differently. Some label the broad factor Neuroticism; others use Emotional Stability or Negative Emotionality and reverse the direction of scoring. Facet structures also differ. A score therefore has meaning only within the instrument, scoring method, normative sample, and population from which it was derived.
The occupational literature often combines results from different personality measures by aligning them to a Big Five dimension. That is scientifically useful for synthesis, but it does not make every neuroticism scale interchangeable. A NEO PI-R Neuroticism score, an NEO-FFI score, a BFI-2 Negative Emotionality score, an IPIP scale, and an Eysenck neuroticism score are related measures with different item content, facet coverage, scale ranges, and norms. For a measurement-focused explanation, see Neuroticism Test: What It Measures and How to Interpret Results.
Job performance is also multidimensional
Job performance is not simply productivity, a supervisor's overall impression, or the number of tasks completed. Reviews of work-performance models identify several recurring domains, including task performance, contextual or citizenship performance, adaptive performance, and counterproductive work behavior. Koopmans et al. (2011) found these domains repeatedly across generic and occupation-specific frameworks, while Campbell and Wiernik (2015) emphasized that work performance is multidimensional, dynamic, and dependent on how it is assessed.
This creates an immediate interpretive problem for any sentence claiming that neuroticism “predicts performance.” Performance can be a supervisor rating of overall effectiveness, objective sales or production data, training proficiency, contextual behavior, organizational citizenship, errors, safety outcomes, withdrawal, or counterproductive behavior. A trait can relate differently to each outcome.
Neuroticism is not negative affect, anxiety, or a clinical disorder
Neuroticism overlaps conceptually and empirically with negative affectivity, but the constructs are not identical. Negative affect can be measured as a more state-like or dispositional tendency to experience unpleasant affect, depending on the instrument. Kaplan et al. (2009) found that positive and negative affectivity related to multiple performance dimensions and that, when positive affect, negative affect, extraversion, and neuroticism were modeled together, affectivity variables could account for task-performance variance that was not uniquely attributed to neuroticism. This is one reason occupational findings about negative affect should not automatically be relabeled as findings about neuroticism.
The same caution applies to anxiety. Trait anxiety, momentary anxiety, generalized anxiety disorder, depressive symptoms, burnout, and stress reactions can correlate with neuroticism without being interchangeable with it. The distinction between neuroticism and negative affect is developed in Neuroticism and Negative Affect: How the Constructs Overlap and Differ.
What the Major Meta-Analyses Show
The broadest recent synthesis finds a modest negative association
The strongest high-level answer comes from Zell and Lesick's quantitative synthesis of more than 50 meta-analyses. Across performance domains, neuroticism showed an overall association of ρ = −.12, while conscientiousness showed the strongest overall association at ρ = .19. When performance was separated by category, neuroticism was more strongly associated with job performance, about ρ = −.15, than with academic performance, about ρ = −.03. Conscientiousness was associated with job performance at about ρ = .20.
These values are meta-analytic population estimates, not a direct forecast for a particular employee. The Greek letter rho is often used in psychometric meta-analysis for an estimated population correlation after statistical corrections. It should not be read as “a 15 percent performance loss,” “15 percent lower productivity,” or a probability that an individual will underperform. Correlation coefficients summarize covariation between measured variables; they do not convert directly into percentages of performance.
Classic job-performance meta-analyses established the pattern but also the heterogeneity
The modern literature was shaped by Barrick and Mount (1991), who meta-analyzed Big Five dimensions against job proficiency, training proficiency, and personnel data across professional, police, managerial, sales, and skilled or semiskilled occupations. Conscientiousness showed the most consistent relationship across criteria and occupations. Emotional stability showed less uniform relations, an early indication that its relevance depends more on criterion and occupational context.
A European meta-analysis by Salgado (1997) found conscientiousness and emotional stability to be valid predictors across job criteria and occupational groups in the European Community, while the other Big Five traits were more criterion- or occupation-specific. The result supported generalizability beyond the North American studies available to earlier reviews.
Using studies that explicitly measured the Big Five, Hurtz and Donovan (2000) reported job-performance findings broadly similar to prior syntheses but emphasized construct-validity problems and more complicated patterns for contextual performance. This is a useful corrective to claims that one Big Five coefficient captures every kind of workplace performance.
A second-order synthesis by Barrick, Mount, and Judge (2001) summarized 15 previous meta-analytic studies. Emotional stability emerged as a generalizable predictor when overall work performance was the criterion, while its relationships with specific criteria and occupations were less consistent than those for conscientiousness. That combination of a reliable broad tendency and substantial contextual variation remains central to the field.
Later second-order work shows that personality validities themselves vary
A later second-order meta-analysis by He, Donnellan, and Mendoza (2019) integrated prior meta-analytic estimates and explicitly tested whether apparent differences in Big Five validities across performance criteria reflected true heterogeneity or second-order sampling error. The authors reported that much of the variation across performance criteria for several Five-Factor Model traits could be attributed to second-order sampling error, although some moderators—notably the source of personality ratings—showed evidence of genuine variation. Their analysis is a useful warning against treating every difference between published meta-analytic coefficients as a stable occupational effect.
Why the Effect Is Real but Modest
Job performance has many determinants. Knowledge, cognitive abilities, skills, experience, conscientiousness, motivation, role clarity, task design, resources, leadership, team processes, workload, feedback, health, technology, and organizational conditions can all matter. Neuroticism captures one broad dispositional tendency within that system. Even when its average correlation is statistically reliable, much of the variation in performance remains associated with other factors.
A modest correlation can still matter at the population level when organizations study large groups, repeated outcomes, or combinations of predictors. The same coefficient remains weak as a basis for judging one person's future. The two statements belong together: small average effects can be scientifically meaningful, while individual outcomes remain highly variable.
The Relationship Changes Across Occupations
Occupation is one of the clearest reasons not to treat neuroticism as a universal performance switch. Wilmot and Ones (2021) conducted second-order meta-analyses using 15 meta-analyses, 47 effects, 539 studies, and 89,639 workers across nine major occupational groups. They integrated the personality evidence with O*NET ratings of trait relevance and occupational complexity.
Their findings showed substantial differences across occupational groups. Conscientiousness predicted performance across all groups in their synthesis, while other traits were more predictive when they were more relevant to occupational requirements. Emotional stability was especially predictive in skilled and semiskilled work, law enforcement, and military occupations. The authors also found that occupational complexity moderated personality–performance relations.
This does not mean that a high-neuroticism individual is unsuited to those occupations, or that low neuroticism guarantees success. It means that the correlation between an emotional-stability dimension and performance can become stronger when job demands make that dimension more behaviorally relevant. This is an occupation-level moderation finding, not a personal career prescription.
Different Forms of Performance Produce Different Answers
Task performance
Task performance concerns the core technical or role-prescribed activities of a job. Many classic personality meta-analyses use overall supervisory ratings or task-proximal performance criteria. Their average pattern generally favors emotional stability over neuroticism, but the strength depends on occupation and measurement. The Zell and Lesick synthesis places the average neuroticism–job-performance relationship in the modest range rather than the range expected from a dominant determinant of performance.
Contextual performance and organizational citizenship behavior
Contextual performance includes behaviors that support the social and organizational environment in which core tasks are performed. Organizational citizenship behavior, or OCB, is one major family of such behaviors. A meta-analysis of 87 statistically independent samples by Chiaburu et al. (2011) found that emotional stability, extraversion, and openness or intellect added predictive validity for citizenship beyond conscientiousness and agreeableness. The authors also found that Big Five traits predicted citizenship beyond job satisfaction.
The implication is not that emotional stability produces prosocial behavior in every worker. Rather, contextual criteria reveal relations that may be less visible when performance is reduced to a single global rating.
Counterproductive work behavior
Counterproductive work behavior, or CWB, includes voluntary behaviors that can harm an organization, its members, or legitimate work goals. In a meta-analysis of interpersonal and organizational deviance, Berry, Ones, and Sackett (2007) found that emotional stability was among the Big Five traits showing negative relationships with workplace deviance. A more recent meta-analysis spanning Big Five, HEXACO, and Dark Triad traits likewise found significant associations between neuroticism or emotional stability measures and CWB, while also reporting heterogeneity across studies and measures. Miao et al. (2023).
CWB should not be treated as simply the negative of task performance. An employee can be strong on core tasks while also showing problematic behavior in another performance domain, and vice versa. This is another reason that a global statement such as “neuroticism lowers performance” needs a specified criterion.
Adaptive and creative performance
Adaptive performance concerns responding effectively to changing demands, while creative performance concerns generating useful novel ideas or solutions. These criteria are increasingly represented in broader performance research, but they should not be collapsed into the classic overall-performance estimates. A 2025 meta-analysis by Rockstuhl, Ng, and Ang examined Big Five metatraits, cultural intelligence, and five forms of job performance, including task, citizenship, adaptive, and creative performance. Because that analysis modeled higher-order metatraits rather than isolated neuroticism, it informs the broader architecture of personality and performance without supplying a clean standalone neuroticism effect.
Possible Mechanisms Linking Neuroticism to Performance
Meta-analysis can establish that variables covary across studies. It does not by itself establish the full causal chain. Several plausible mechanisms have evidence, but they should be described as pathways under investigation rather than as universal explanations.
Stress perception, reactivity, and recovery
Higher neuroticism is associated with greater perceived stress and stronger negative emotional responses to stressors in many lines of personality research. In work settings, recurrent worry, threat appraisal, frustration, and slower emotional recovery can consume attention or make demanding situations feel more costly. The occupational performance literature is therefore compatible with a stress pathway, especially in jobs where emotional regulation under pressure is central.
Yet this pathway is not equivalent to saying that high neuroticism causes poor performance through stress in every person. Job demands, resources, autonomy, support, experience, sleep, health, coping strategies, and the objective structure of the work can all alter the sequence. For the broader trait–stress evidence, see Neuroticism and Stress: Perceived Stress, Reactivity, and Recovery.
Performance motivation
A meta-analysis by Judge and Ilies (2002) synthesized 150 correlations from 65 studies across goal-setting, expectancy, and self-efficacy approaches to performance motivation. Neuroticism showed an average validity of about −.31 for performance motivation, making it one of the strongest Big Five correlates in that analysis. This is relevant as a possible mechanism, but performance motivation is not the same construct as actual job performance. A stronger relationship with motivation cannot be substituted for the smaller meta-analytic relationship with job performance.
Negative affectivity
The distinction between neuroticism and negative affectivity becomes especially important here. Kaplan et al. (2009) meta-analyzed 57 primary studies and found relationships between positive or negative affectivity and task performance, citizenship, withdrawal, counterproductive behavior, and occupational injury. When positive affectivity, negative affectivity, extraversion, and neuroticism were considered together, affectivity variables showed unique prediction of task performance whereas neuroticism and extraversion did not. This suggests that some work-performance pathways may operate through affective tendencies more proximal to workplace behavior than a broad Big Five trait.
Perceived psychological contract breach
A newer meta-analysis by Lee, Berry, and Rees (2024) examined personality, perceived psychological contract breach, and job-performance dimensions. Emotional stability was among the strongest personality correlates of perceived breach, and meta-analytic models were consistent with perceived breach statistically mediating relationships involving emotional stability and task performance, citizenship, and counterproductive behavior.
Statistical mediation in a meta-analytic model is informative about a plausible pathway, but it is not identical to a randomized causal test. Perceptions of the work environment, reciprocal employee–organization processes, and unmeasured variables can all contribute.
Measurement Matters More Than Search Summaries Usually Admit
The neuroticism instrument matters
Occupational studies do not all measure neuroticism with the same instrument. Some assess Neuroticism directly; others assess Emotional Stability and reverse the interpretive direction; still others use broad Big Five inventories with different facet content. Older meta-analyses also sometimes mapped legacy personality scales onto Big Five categories. Hurtz and Donovan explicitly highlighted this construct-validity issue when they restricted attention more closely to explicit Big Five measures.
Because of these differences, a “high neuroticism score” has no universal numerical threshold. Raw scores, percentiles, T-scores, stanines, and scale averages only make sense with the instrument and its normative or scoring framework. A percentile is a relative position within a reference distribution, not a diagnosis and not a direct performance prediction.
The performance measure matters
Supervisor ratings, peer ratings, objective output, sales figures, errors, training outcomes, citizenship measures, and CWB measures each introduce different sources of variance. Subjective ratings can contain valid observations as well as rater-specific variance. Objective metrics can look cleaner while still being contaminated by territory, equipment, market conditions, case difficulty, team resources, or opportunity to perform.
The affectivity meta-analysis by Kaplan and colleagues found stronger associations for subjectively rated than objectively rated task performance. That finding does not prove that subjective ratings are biased against emotionally reactive workers; it shows that measurement source can change the observed relationship and therefore belongs in the interpretation.
Meta-analytic corrections matter
Many personnel-psychology meta-analyses correct observed correlations for statistical artifacts such as unreliability and range restriction. Corrected estimates can be more appropriate for estimating a latent population relationship, but they are not numerically equivalent to the raw correlation a reader might calculate in one workplace sample. Comparing effect sizes across papers therefore requires attention to the authors' correction procedures, inclusion criteria, and criterion definitions.
Correlation Does Not Establish a Deterministic Causal Effect
The neuroticism–job-performance literature is largely correlational and observational. Even longitudinal designs improve temporal information without automatically eliminating confounding, reciprocal effects, selection processes, or measurement overlap. A reliable meta-analytic association can coexist with several causal structures.
For example, neuroticism may influence how threatening work demands feel; work environments may shape emotional states and, over longer periods, personality development; people may select into different roles; managers may respond differently to workers' behavior; stress exposure may affect both emotional functioning and performance; and shared method variance may inflate some correlations. Meta-analysis aggregates these literatures but does not make all of these alternatives disappear.
The strongest language supported by the broad evidence is therefore that higher neuroticism is associated with somewhat lower average job performance and that emotional stability can predict performance in some contexts. The evidence does not support translating the trait into a biological defect, a psychiatric diagnosis, or an individual performance destiny.
Can Someone High in Neuroticism Be a High Performer?
Yes. The meta-analytic relationship is far too small and too context-dependent to define an individual worker. People high in neuroticism can have high expertise, exceptional conscientiousness, strong cognitive skills, effective routines, supportive teams, well-designed roles, good emotion-regulation strategies, and deep motivation. Any of those can matter substantially for performance.
A negative population correlation means that the distributions differ slightly on average; it does not divide the workforce into a high-neuroticism low-performance group and a low-neuroticism high-performance group. There is extensive overlap. The same logic applies in the other direction: low neuroticism does not guarantee accuracy, persistence, cooperation, judgment, technical competence, or ethical behavior.
Research on interactions and trait configurations also cautions against evaluating one broad trait in isolation. Effects can depend on combinations of traits and situational demands. Those findings are often more sample- and model-specific than the main-effect literature, so they are useful for explaining heterogeneity rather than for creating universal personality recipes.
Is Emotional Stability More Important Than Conscientiousness?
Across broad meta-analytic syntheses, conscientiousness is generally the more consistent Big Five predictor of performance. Zell and Lesick estimated job-performance associations of about .20 for conscientiousness and −.15 for neuroticism. Barrick and Mount, Barrick and colleagues, and Wilmot and Ones likewise found conscientiousness to generalize broadly across occupations, while emotional stability showed more criterion and occupation dependence.
That does not make emotional stability irrelevant. In work involving sustained pressure, threat, interpersonal friction, safety demands, or emotional regulation, its relationship with performance can be stronger. The scientific comparison is therefore about average predictive validity under specified conditions, not about which trait is “better” as a human characteristic.
Leadership and Performance Are Related but Separate Intents
Leadership is one important occupational context, but leader emergence and leader effectiveness are not interchangeable with general employee job performance. Research on leadership has its own outcome measures and trait meta-analyses. The English Psychology Hub treats that evidence separately in Leadership Traits: Big Five, Extraversion, Intelligence, Charisma, and Effectiveness. The current article stays with the neuroticism–job-performance relationship rather than turning leadership into a substitute outcome.
Can Employers Use Neuroticism to Predict Job Performance?
Personality assessment can contribute information in personnel research, but a meta-analytic correlation does not justify treating a neuroticism score as a stand-alone hiring rule. Any employment assessment used for consequential decisions needs evidence that the procedure measures what it claims to measure and is relevant to the specific work and decision context. In the United States, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's guidance on employment tests and selection procedures explicitly includes personality tests among selection procedures and explains that their use must comply with applicable anti-discrimination law.
From a measurement perspective, the largest problem with simplistic use is not merely legal. It is predictive. The average neuroticism–performance correlation is modest, occupational requirements matter, criterion choice matters, other traits and abilities matter, and any single score contains measurement error. A person should not be reduced to a trait label or a population-average coefficient.
For research and organizational design, personality data can be informative when it is collected with validated instruments, interpreted by trained professionals, tied to a clearly defined criterion, and considered alongside other relevant evidence. For an individual reader, an online neuroticism result should not be used as a self-issued verdict about employability, leadership potential, or career fit.
What the Evidence Means for Workers and Managers
For workers, the most useful interpretation is functional rather than categorical. If worry, threat sensitivity, rumination, stress reactivity, or self-consciousness interferes with a specific task, the actionable question is what process is being disrupted and under what conditions. Changes in workload, feedback clarity, preparation, recovery, sleep, role design, coping, communication, or treatment of a genuine clinical condition can affect functioning without requiring a person to “remove” a personality trait.
For managers, the evidence supports attention to the interaction between person and work. A worker who is more stress-reactive may perform differently under chronic ambiguity than under clear expectations; the same employee may perform differently with adequate resources than with persistent overload. Occupational meta-analysis shows that trait relevance changes across jobs, which makes job design and criterion definition part of any serious performance analysis.
The evidence also argues against moralizing the trait. Neuroticism is not laziness, incompetence, disloyalty, or weak character. It is a broad dimension of personality associated with patterns of emotional experience and reactivity. Performance is an outcome of a larger work system.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does high neuroticism mean poor job performance?
No. Higher neuroticism is associated with somewhat lower average job performance in meta-analytic research, but the association is modest and leaves extensive overlap between people at different trait levels. It cannot determine how a particular employee will perform.
How strong is the relationship between neuroticism and job performance?
The broad synthesis by Zell and Lesick estimated approximately ρ = −.15 for job performance. Other meta-analyses report different values because they use different occupations, criteria, measures, and correction procedures. The best summary is a modest negative average association, not a universal coefficient.
Is emotional stability simply low neuroticism?
In much Big Five occupational research, emotional stability is treated as the opposite pole of neuroticism and is often scored by reversing a neuroticism dimension. However, instruments vary in item wording and facet representation, so two scales with opposite labels are not automatically psychometrically identical.
Is neuroticism the same as anxiety?
No. Neuroticism is a broad personality dimension. Anxiety can refer to a temporary state, a symptom, trait anxiety measured by a specific instrument, or a clinical anxiety disorder. These constructs can correlate without being interchangeable.
Is neuroticism a mental disorder?
No. Neuroticism is a dimensional personality construct used in personality science. A high score does not diagnose an anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, OCD, PTSD, personality disorder, or any other psychiatric condition.
Does neuroticism reduce productivity by 15 percent?
No. A meta-analytic correlation near −.15 is not a 15 percent reduction in productivity. Correlations are standardized measures of association, not percentage changes in output. The underlying studies also use different performance criteria, many of which are ratings rather than direct productivity counts.
Can stress explain the relationship?
Stress-related processes are plausible contributors because neuroticism is associated with perceived stress and emotional reactivity, but the full performance relationship cannot be reduced to a single mediator. Motivation, affect, work conditions, role demands, measurement method, and other individual differences can also matter.
Should a high neuroticism score affect career choice?
A trait score alone is too weak and context-dependent to prescribe or rule out a career. Occupational characteristics moderate personality–performance relationships, but group-level moderation does not identify the best career for an individual. Skills, interests, values, opportunities, health, experience, learning, and actual performance evidence remain essential.
Can neuroticism change while job performance changes?
Both personality traits and performance can change over time, but change in one does not prove that it caused change in the other. Short-term performance changes may reflect states, stressors, learning, leadership, health, workload, or resources without meaningful trait change. Trait change, state fluctuation, symptom improvement, and performance improvement should be measured separately.
Bottom Line
Meta-analyses show a consistent but modest population-level association between neuroticism and job performance. The most comprehensive quantitative synthesis estimates the relationship at roughly ρ = −.15 for job performance: higher neuroticism is associated with somewhat lower average performance, while emotional stability tends to show the reverse direction. Classic and newer meta-analyses agree that the size of the relationship depends on occupation, performance criterion, personality measure, and statistical method.
The evidence is most useful when it is interpreted as part of a multivariable model of work. Neuroticism can contribute to performance-relevant processes involving stress, motivation, affect, and reactions to the work environment, yet it remains one trait among many influences. It is not a diagnosis, not a moral label, and not an individual forecast.
Related Articles
References
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
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1–2), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00160
Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 410–424. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17371088/
Campbell, J. P., & Wiernik, B. M. (2015). The modeling and assessment of work performance. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 47–74. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111427
Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I.-S., Berry, C. M., Li, N., & Gardner, R. G. (2011). The five-factor model of personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1140–1166. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21688883/
He, Y., Donnellan, M. B., & Mendoza, A. M. (2019). Five-factor personality domains and job-performance criteria: A second-order meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 82, 103848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.103848
Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 869–879. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11125652/
Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 797–807. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12184582/
Kaplan, S., Bradley, J. C., Luchman, J. N., & Haynes, D. (2009). On the role of positive and negative affectivity in job performance: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 162–176. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19186902/
Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C. M., Hildebrandt, V. H., Schaufeli, W. B., de Vet, H. C. W., & van der Beek, A. J. (2011). Conceptual frameworks of individual work performance: A systematic review. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 53(8), 856–866. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21775896/
Lee, Y., Berry, C. M., & Rees, R. (2024). Eye of the beholder: A meta-analysis of personality traits' relationships with psychological contract breach and job performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 155, 104064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2024.104064
Miao, Y., Wang, J., Shen, R., & Wang, D. (2023). Effects of Big Five, HEXACO, and Dark Triad on counterproductive work behaviors: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 25(3), 357–374. https://doi.org/10.32604/ijmhp.2023.027950
Rockstuhl, T., Ng, K. Y., & Ang, S. (2025). Stability and plasticity in personality: A meta-analytic investigation of their influence on cultural intelligence and five forms of job performance. Applied Psychology, 74(1), e12557. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12557
Salgado, J. F. (1997). The Five Factor Model of personality and job performance in the European Community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 30–43. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9119797/
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2007). Employment Tests and Selection Procedures. https://www.eeoc.gov/es/node/130185
Wilmot, M. P., & Ones, D. S. (2021). Occupational characteristics moderate personality–performance relations in major occupational groups. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 131, 103655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103655
Zell, E., & Lesick, T. L. (2022). Big five personality traits and performance: A quantitative synthesis of 50+ meta-analyses. Journal of Personality, 90(4), 559–573. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34687041/