Neuroticism at Work: Stress, Behavior, and Workplace Experience
Updated: Oct 8
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 30, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Neuroticism at work refers to how a broad Big Five personality trait may relate to the way people experience workplace stress, interpret setbacks, regulate negative emotions, interact with colleagues, and respond to job demands. Across large bodies of occupational research, higher neuroticism is associated on average with greater psychological stress, lower job satisfaction, somewhat lower job performance, higher burnout risk, lower work engagement, and some forms of difficult workplace experience. These are population-level associations, not verdicts about an individual employee, and they do not make neuroticism a diagnosis, a measure of competence, or a reliable basis for predicting one person’s career.
The central distinction is between a relatively enduring personality tendency and what happens in a particular workday. Neuroticism describes a characteristic propensity toward negative emotionality; a tense meeting, a week of exhaustion, an anxiety episode, a conflict with a manager, or a period of low mood is a state or experience rather than a personality diagnosis. For the broader personality-science definition, see Neuroticism: What It Is in the Big Five Personality Model. For the detailed evidence on stress perception, reactivity, and recovery, see Neuroticism and Stress: Perceived Stress, Reactivity, and Recovery.
Neuroticism at Work: The Short Answer
At work, people higher in neuroticism are more likely, on average, to notice threat, uncertainty, criticism, conflict, possible failure, or loss and to experience stronger or more persistent negative emotion around those events. This can influence subjective workload, job satisfaction, stress, confidence, recovery after setbacks, and the emotional tone of workplace interactions. It can also interact with actual features of the job, including workload, autonomy, role clarity, interpersonal support, leadership, occupational demands, and the consequences of making errors.
A major meta-analysis of the Big Five and stress combined 1,575 effect sizes from 298 samples and found neuroticism positively related to stress overall. Crucially, the authors distinguished stressor exposure, psychological stress perception, and physiological stress response: neuroticism showed a clear relationship with stress exposure and psychological stress perception, while Big Five associations with physiological stress responses were weak to null. That distinction matters because feeling more stressed does not automatically imply a simple or uniformly stronger biological stress response. See Luo, Zhang, Cao, and Roberts (2023).
The same caution applies to work outcomes. Meta-analyses generally find average correlations, not deterministic rules. A correlation between neuroticism and job satisfaction, performance, burnout, or turnover does not mean that every person higher in neuroticism will be dissatisfied, underperform, burn out, or leave a job. The magnitude and meaning of an association depend on the outcome, the instrument, the occupation, the work environment, other traits, the source of ratings, and the study design.
What Neuroticism Means in Occupational Psychology
Neuroticism is one of the broad dimensions in the Big Five family of personality models. It captures stable individual differences in the tendency to experience negative emotions and distress. The opposite pole is commonly called emotional stability. Some instruments use different labels and structures: the BFI-2 calls the corresponding domain Negative Emotionality, while NEO instruments retain the label Neuroticism. Eysenck measures and IPIP-based scales also assess related constructs, but they are not numerically interchangeable.
The BFI-2 is especially useful for seeing why labels matter. It models Negative Emotionality hierarchically and includes narrower facets rather than treating a broad domain as a single undifferentiated reaction. The validation work by Soto and John emphasizes the value of distinguishing broad domains from facets and of interpreting scores within the instrument actually used; see Soto and John (2017). A raw score, percentile, or phrase such as “high neuroticism” therefore has no universal meaning outside its scale, scoring method, reference sample, and population.
Occupational research also sometimes reverses the trait and reports emotional stability rather than neuroticism. A negative association between neuroticism and an outcome may appear as a positive association between emotional stability and that outcome. Researchers can further differ in whether the measure reflects a broad Big Five domain, a narrower facet, negative affectivity, or an older personality framework. Those constructs overlap, but treating them as exact synonyms can make effect sizes look more consistent than they really are.
Trait Neuroticism Is Not the Same as a Stressful Workday
A personality trait is a distribution of tendencies across time and situations. Workplaces contain changing situations: an employee may be relaxed during routine tasks, apprehensive before a high-stakes presentation, irritated by an ambiguous request, focused during a deadline, and relieved after receiving feedback. These momentary expressions can move substantially even when the person’s broader trait level is relatively stable.
This distinction is becoming more important in contemporary organizational psychology. A 2026 narrative review of personality states at work identified 33 studies examining short-term personality dynamics and concluded that both enduring traits and situational conditions matter for state expressions. For neuroticism specifically, emerging work links state expressions with task demands, perceived situational characteristics, and interpersonal events, while the evidence on state variability remains comparatively young. See Collis, Woods, Wu, and Alesayi (2026).
This means an employee who appears tense in one meeting should not be labeled as highly neurotic, and a person with a high trait score should not be expected to display worry or irritability continuously. Trait level, state expression, symptom severity, clinical diagnosis, and observed workplace behavior answer different questions.
How Neuroticism Can Shape Workplace Stress
Appraisal and Perceived Stress
One of the most consistent findings is that neuroticism relates more strongly to psychological stress perception than to a single physiological stress signature. People higher on the trait may appraise uncertainty, interpersonal friction, time pressure, negative feedback, or possible mistakes as more threatening or costly. This does not mean the stressor is imaginary. The same objective demand can carry different subjective meaning for different people, and many workplace demands are genuinely difficult regardless of personality.
Daily-life evidence also shows why a simple “more reactive to everything” story is too crude. In a 2024 experience-sampling study, higher neuroticism was associated with higher overall negative affect in two age-heterogeneous samples, but stronger stressor reactivity appeared only in one of the samples, and extraversion or openness did not consistently buffer the association. See Lücke and colleagues (2024). The broader evidence therefore supports higher average negative affect and stress sensitivity while leaving room for substantial variation in reactivity and recovery.
Recovery, Anticipation, and Carryover
Work stress is not limited to what happens during a stressful event. Anticipation before an event, repetitive thinking afterward, and the degree to which negative affect carries into the next task can all shape the experienced workday. Higher neuroticism is associated with patterns of negative emotionality that can make threat cues and adverse interpretations more salient, but the size and mechanism of these associations vary across studies. It is better to describe a vulnerability to sustained or recurrent negative affect than to assume that every high-neuroticism employee has slow recovery from every stressor.
The dedicated stress evidence review in Neuroticism and Stress separates perceived stress, affective reactivity, recovery, and physiological measures. That separation is especially important in occupational settings, where workload, sleep, organizational support, role ambiguity, job insecurity, and interpersonal conflict can all change the stress process independently of personality.
Interpersonal Events and Feedback
Workplaces are social environments, so personality can influence both emotional reactions to other people and the situations people experience. Critical feedback may be interpreted as useful information, social threat, unfairness, or evidence of failure depending on context and person. Conflict can also temporarily increase state expressions associated with neuroticism. These processes are reciprocal: a difficult workplace can create more negative states, while repeated negative appraisals and reactions can affect relationships and future interactions. Cross-sectional data cannot cleanly tell which direction dominates.
What Research Shows About Job Performance
Neuroticism has a negative average association with job performance, but the effect is modest and context-dependent. A 2022 second-order synthesis of 54 meta-analyses covering 2,028 effects and 554,778 participants found an overall neuroticism–performance association of about ρ = −0.12. For job performance specifically, the association was about ρ = −0.15, while the relationship differed across performance categories. Conscientiousness was the strongest Big Five correlate overall. See Zell and Lesick (2022).
Earlier meta-analytic work likewise found that Big Five traits have criterion-related validity for job performance but warned against treating broad personality effects as uniform across criteria. Hurtz and Donovan’s reanalysis using explicit Big Five measures emphasized the complexity of contextual performance and construct validity; see Hurtz and Donovan (2000).
Occupation matters. A second-order meta-analysis integrating 15 meta-analyses, 539 studies, and 89,639 workers found that personality–performance relations differed considerably across nine major occupational groups and were stronger when a trait was more relevant to occupational requirements. Emotional stability was particularly relevant in some groups, including law enforcement, military, and skilled or semiskilled occupations, but the pattern did not support a single trait-to-career rule. See Wilmot and Ones (2021).
These findings rule out two popular extremes. Neuroticism is not irrelevant to performance, and it is not a general measure of employee quality. A modest population correlation leaves enormous overlap between people at different trait levels. Skill, knowledge, experience, conscientiousness, motivation, job design, leadership, team processes, health, and resources can matter at least as much or more for a particular worker and task.
Neuroticism and Job Satisfaction
The relationship with job satisfaction is stronger and more consistent than many performance effects. Judge, Heller, and Mount’s classic meta-analysis classified 334 correlations from 163 independent samples and estimated a true-score correlation of −0.29 between neuroticism and overall job satisfaction. Neuroticism and extraversion were the two Big Five relations that generalized across studies in that review. See Judge, Heller, and Mount (2002).
The association is compatible with several mechanisms: stable differences in negative affect, appraisal of work events, selection into and out of environments, interpersonal processes, and actual differences in job experiences. It should not be reduced to the claim that dissatisfied employees merely “have the wrong personality.” Job satisfaction is also shaped by pay, workload, autonomy, fairness, support, meaningfulness, leadership, scheduling, insecurity, and many other organizational conditions.
Neuroticism, Work Engagement, and Motivation
Work engagement is usually defined around vigor, dedication, and absorption rather than simple happiness. A meta-analysis of 36 studies found neuroticism negatively associated with work engagement, with a corrected estimate of approximately ρ = −0.36 after publication-bias adjustment. Conscientiousness showed the strongest positive association in that analysis. See Fukuzaki and Iwata (2022).
A broader meta-analysis of personality and employee engagement across 114 independent samples and 44,224 participants also found personality related to engagement, but neuroticism and negative affectivity were less important than positive affectivity, proactive personality, conscientiousness, and extraversion in relative-weight analyses. See Young and colleagues (2018). The practical lesson is that lower engagement among people higher in neuroticism cannot be explained by one trait alone, and engagement is not a fixed personality property.
Neuroticism and Burnout
Burnout is an occupational phenomenon involving dimensions such as exhaustion and, depending on the framework, cynicism or depersonalization and reduced professional efficacy. Personality contributes to vulnerability, but job conditions remain central. A meta-analysis by Alarcon, Eschleman, and Bowling found significant relations between personality variables and burnout and showed that measurement choices and study characteristics can moderate some effects. See Alarcon, Eschleman, and Bowling (2009).
A later meta-analysis by Swider and Zimmerman integrated Big Five traits with burnout and work outcomes including absenteeism, turnover, and performance. Its meta-analytic path model suggested that burnout can statistically mediate some personality–outcome relationships, but a path model based on correlational evidence should not be read as proof that neuroticism biologically or psychologically causes burnout in a fixed sequence. See Swider and Zimmerman (2010).
Organizational evidence is a useful corrective to person-only explanations. A 2023 meta-analysis of controlled workplace interventions found small average reductions in exhaustion from organization-directed interventions, with workload-focused and participatory approaches among the categories showing benefit, while the overall certainty of evidence was very low because studies were few and heterogeneous. See Bes and colleagues (2023). Higher neuroticism may mark greater average vulnerability to exhaustion, but it does not make excessive workload, poor staffing, harassment, role conflict, or unsafe working conditions an individual personality problem.
Neuroticism and Turnover
Personality also relates to whether employees think about leaving and whether they actually leave, although the strongest trait can differ by outcome. Zimmerman’s meta-analytic path model found emotional stability most predictive of lower intentions to quit, while conscientiousness and agreeableness were stronger negative predictors of actual turnover decisions. The analysis also indicated direct personality relationships not fully captured by job satisfaction or performance. See Zimmerman (2008).
This difference between intentions and behavior is important. Wanting to leave can reflect distress, fit, conflict, perceived alternatives, or anticipated future problems. Actual turnover additionally depends on labor-market opportunities, finances, family responsibilities, contracts, geography, organizational policy, and chance. A personality trait can shift average probabilities without determining the decision.
Neuroticism and Counterproductive Work Behavior
Counterproductive work behavior is a broad research category that can include withdrawal, incivility, aggression, rule breaking, misuse of time, and other behaviors that harm an organization or its members. A 2023 meta-analysis reported a positive association between neuroticism and counterproductive work behavior, with a corrected population estimate around ρ = 0.27 across the included neuroticism studies. The authors also found substantial heterogeneity and examined variation by measures and samples. See the meta-analysis of Big Five, HEXACO, and Dark Triad traits.
This association should be handled carefully. It does not justify inferring misconduct from a personality score, and it does not mean emotional distress is equivalent to aggression, dishonesty, or poor citizenship. Counterproductive behavior has many situational and organizational antecedents, including injustice, conflict, stressors, supervision, norms, and opportunity. Personality data describe statistical tendencies across samples; they do not establish that a particular employee will violate workplace rules.
Neuroticism and Leadership
Leadership is another area where average trait relations exist without creating a simple leader profile. A quantitative review of 73 samples found neuroticism negatively related to leadership, with an observed correlation around r = −0.24, while extraversion emerged as the strongest Big Five correlate. See Judge, Bono, Ilies, and Gerhardt (2002).
Leadership outcomes depend on much more than neuroticism: expertise, judgment, social skills, conscientiousness, team context, authority structures, organizational culture, incentives, and the demands of the leadership role all matter. For the broader owner topic, see Leadership Traits: Big Five, Extraversion, Intelligence, Charisma, and Effectiveness. Neuroticism at work should therefore be treated as one possible contributor to leadership experience and stress, not as a pass/fail criterion for leadership.
Work–Family Spillover and Recovery Outside Work
Workplace experience does not end at the office door or when a laptop closes. A meta-analysis of dispositional variables and work–family conflict found neuroticism and negative affect among the larger dispositional correlates of conflict in both directions between work and family. See Allen and colleagues (2012).
A later meta-analysis of work–family balance across 130 independent samples and more than 223,000 participants found neuroticism negatively associated with balance, while work resources such as autonomy, schedule control, and workplace support were positively related to balance. See Vaziri and colleagues (2022). This again shows why a trait-only explanation is incomplete: personal tendencies and work resources coexist in the same system.
Why Workplace Context Changes the Meaning of Neuroticism
The same person can function differently across jobs, teams, managers, and phases of a career. Clear expectations may reduce uncertainty; autonomy may increase control; supportive supervision may change how criticism is interpreted; chronic overload may amplify distress; ambiguous priorities may create repeated vigilance; and high-consequence errors can make threat sensitivity more relevant to daily work.
The occupational-moderation evidence from Wilmot and Ones (2021) is particularly important because it demonstrates that personality–performance relations differ across major occupational groups. The fact that a trait predicts an outcome more strongly when it is relevant to occupational requirements means that a global statement such as “high neuroticism is bad for work” throws away information that occupational psychology actually needs.
Context also changes what counts as adaptive behavior. Vigilance before a safety-critical task can be useful; persistent threat monitoring in a low-risk environment can be exhausting. Concern about mistakes can motivate checking; excessive concern can consume attention. Sensitivity to interpersonal tension can help someone notice a deteriorating team climate; it can also increase distress if ambiguous cues are consistently interpreted negatively. Whether such processes help or hurt depends on intensity, task demands, other traits, skills, and the environment.
Can Higher Neuroticism Have Advantages at Work?
Popular career content often converts plausible mechanisms into fixed strengths: people high in neuroticism are described as naturally better risk analysts, editors, quality-control specialists, creatives, or empathic helpers. The research base does not support a universal list of “best jobs for high neuroticism.” There is evidence that occupational characteristics moderate personality–performance relationships, but that is different from proving that high neuroticism gives an average advantage in a named occupation.
Possible advantages should therefore be described conditionally. Heightened sensitivity to potential problems may support vigilance in some situations. Concern about errors may prompt preparation in some people. Awareness of negative outcomes may contribute to risk detection. Yet each of these processes can also become costly when worry, rumination, avoidance, conflict sensitivity, or fatigue consumes resources. The net effect depends on the person and the task rather than following automatically from a trait score.
Other personality traits also matter. High conscientiousness can change how concern about mistakes is translated into planning and follow-through. Extraversion, agreeableness, and openness can alter social and cognitive responses to workplace demands. Skills, expertise, values, motivation, health, and environmental support add further layers. A single Big Five coordinate is never a complete occupational profile.
What High Neuroticism Does Not Mean at Work
High neuroticism is not a psychiatric diagnosis. It does not mean that a person has an anxiety disorder, depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, a personality disorder, ADHD, autism, or another clinical condition. Clinical disorders require condition-specific diagnostic assessment. A personality score may correlate with vulnerability or symptom severity at the population level without diagnosing any individual.
High neuroticism is also not the same as low intelligence, incompetence, unreliability, weak character, poor leadership, or inability to tolerate responsibility. None of those conclusions follows from the trait definition. Average correlations with job performance are modest, and occupational requirements moderate some personality–performance relations.
Likewise, low neuroticism is not proof of resilience, good judgment, safe behavior, healthy coping, or mental health. A person lower in neuroticism can still experience severe stress or a mental disorder, make poor decisions, burn out under extreme demands, or behave destructively at work. Emotional stability is one personality dimension, not a universal quality score.
Measurement at Work: What a Score Can and Cannot Tell You
A workplace interpretation should start by naming the instrument. NEO inventories assess a Neuroticism domain with a particular facet structure. The BFI-2 assesses Negative Emotionality with anxiety, depression, and emotional-volatility facets. IPIP instruments vary in length and scoring. Eysenck neuroticism measures come from a different historical model. A percentile from one system cannot be substituted for a raw score or percentile from another.
The phrase “high score” is therefore incomplete unless the scale, scoring direction, normative sample, population, and score metric are known. A score might be high relative to one reference group and ordinary relative to another. Short forms generally sacrifice information for efficiency. Repeated measurement can also be affected by transient state, response style, language, motivation, and testing conditions.
When personality assessment is used for employment decisions, the scientific question is not simply whether a questionnaire is reliable in general. The interpretation and use must be supported for the relevant purpose and job context. Professional guidance on personnel selection emphasizes validation evidence and job-related inferences; see the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology’s Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures. A general online neuroticism quiz is not a substitute for a validated selection procedure.
What Employees Can Do With This Information
For an individual employee, the most useful question is rarely “What career fits my neuroticism score?” A better question is which recurring situations create unnecessary distress and which work conditions support effective functioning. That can include clarity of priorities, realistic workload, autonomy, predictable communication, structured feedback, recovery time, supportive supervision, and access to resources. These are concrete features that can be evaluated without turning a trait into an identity.
It can also help to separate anticipation from evidence. A fear that a presentation will go badly, for example, is not the same as actual performance data. A belief that a manager is dissatisfied is not the same as explicit feedback. Tracking recurring triggers, the interpretation attached to them, the behavior that follows, and the eventual outcome can reveal where stress is informative and where it is amplifying uncertainty.
If workplace distress is persistent or severe, the relevant problem may be a job condition, a mental-health symptom pattern, a physical-health issue, a relationship problem, or some combination. Neuroticism can be part of the context without being the diagnosis or the cause. This distinction prevents personality language from obscuring treatable symptoms or organizational problems.
What Managers and Organizations Should Take From the Evidence
Managers should not treat neuroticism as a shorthand for fragility or poor performance. The stronger evidence concerns average tendencies across samples. A manager evaluating a real employee has much richer information: observed performance, role requirements, feedback history, quality of work, collaboration, reliability, learning, workload, and current conditions. Those direct data should not be displaced by personality stereotypes.
Work design matters. Clear priorities, reasonable role boundaries, predictable communication, psychologically safe feedback, manageable workloads, appropriate autonomy, and access to support can reduce avoidable uncertainty for many employees, regardless of personality. These practices are not special accommodations for one trait; they are components of better organizational functioning.
Burnout research is particularly clear about the need to keep structural conditions in view. The controlled-intervention synthesis by Bes and colleagues (2023) found evidence, though of very low certainty, that organizational and combined interventions can reduce exhaustion. That evidence does not imply that every intervention works, but it demonstrates why employee distress should not be explained only as a personal disposition.
Neuroticism, Anxiety, and Mental Health at Work
Neuroticism and anxiety overlap because anxiety is part of the negative-emotional domain captured by many neuroticism measures. They are still not interchangeable. Trait neuroticism is a broad disposition. State anxiety is a temporary emotional condition. Trait anxiety is a narrower stable tendency. An anxiety disorder is a clinical diagnosis based on symptom pattern, severity, duration, impairment, and diagnostic criteria.
The same distinction applies to depression, panic, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, trauma-related symptoms, and other forms of distress. An employee can score high in neuroticism without meeting criteria for a disorder, and an employee can have a disorder at any point on a broad personality continuum. Workplace personality research should not be used to diagnose colleagues or explain away clinically significant symptoms.
Can Neuroticism Change Through Work Experience?
Personality is relatively stable, but it is not fixed. Work is one of the major environments of adult life, and longitudinal research suggests reciprocal relations between personality and occupational experiences. People partly select and shape environments, while repeated work experiences can also contribute to longer-term development. However, a change in daily stress or symptoms should not automatically be called a change in trait neuroticism.
Trait change refers to a durable shift in personality measurement across time. Mean-level change describes average change in a population. Rank-order change concerns whether people alter their relative positions. Individual change concerns reliable movement within a person. State fluctuation describes short-term variation. A calmer month after a project ends is evidence about state or stress exposure, not by itself proof that the personality trait has changed.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does high neuroticism look like at work?
It can be associated with more worry about mistakes, stronger negative reactions to criticism or uncertainty, greater perceived stress, lower average job satisfaction, and more difficulty disengaging from negative work events. These are tendencies, not a checklist. A high score does not tell you how a particular employee behaves in every situation.
Does neuroticism reduce job performance?
On average, higher neuroticism is modestly associated with lower job performance. The large second-order synthesis by Zell and Lesick (2022) estimated the association for job performance at roughly ρ = −0.15. Effects vary by performance criterion and occupation, so the trait cannot determine an individual’s performance.
Does neuroticism cause burnout?
Research supports an association between neuroticism and burnout, but burnout is also shaped by workload, resources, role conflict, staffing, support, fairness, recovery opportunities, and other job conditions. Correlational and meta-analytic path models do not establish a simple one-way causal chain from personality to burnout.
Can high neuroticism be useful at work?
It can be compatible with useful behaviors such as vigilance, preparation, and sensitivity to possible problems, but the evidence does not support a universal workplace advantage. Whether threat sensitivity helps or hurts depends on task demands, intensity, other traits, skills, and the work environment.
What jobs are best for people high in neuroticism?
There is no scientifically established list of best jobs based on neuroticism alone. Occupational characteristics can moderate personality–performance relations, but career choice should also consider interests, abilities, values, training, health, financial needs, opportunities, and actual experience in different environments.
Is neuroticism the same as workplace anxiety?
No. Neuroticism is a broad personality trait. Anxiety at work can be a temporary state, a narrower trait tendency, a response to real workplace conditions, a symptom of a clinical disorder, or some combination. The concepts overlap but answer different questions.
Can an employer diagnose someone as neurotic?
Neuroticism is not a psychiatric diagnosis. Organizations can use validated personality assessments for appropriate occupational purposes, but a workplace personality score does not diagnose mental illness and should be interpreted according to the instrument, validation evidence, job relevance, scoring method, and applicable professional standards.
Related Articles
References
Alarcon, G., Eschleman, K. J., & Bowling, N. A. (2009). Relationships between personality variables and burnout: A meta-analysis. Work & Stress, 23(3), 244–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370903282600
Allen, T. D., Johnson, R. C., Saboe, K. N., Cho, E., Dumani, S., & Evans, S. (2012). Dispositional variables and work–family conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.04.004
Bes, I., Shoman, Y., Al-Gobari, M., Rousson, V., & Guseva Canu, I. (2023). Organizational interventions and occupational burnout: A meta-analysis with focus on exhaustion. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 96, 1211–1223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-023-02009-z
Collis, H., Woods, S. A., Wu, C.-H., & Alesayi, S. (2026). Personality states at work: A narrative review of emergent research and an agenda for future development of the field. Applied Psychology, 75(3), e70093. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.70093
Fukuzaki, T., & Iwata, N. (2022). Association between the five-factor model of personality and work engagement: A meta-analysis. Industrial Health. https://doi.org/10.2486/indhealth.2021-0051
Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 869–879. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.869
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765–780. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 530–541. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.530
Lücke, A. J., Schilling, O. K., Kunzmann, U., Gerstorf, D., Katzorreck-Gierden, M., Hoppmann, C. A., Luong, G., Wagner, G. G., Riediger, M., & Wrzus, C. (2024). Neuroticism, emotional stress reactivity and recovery in daily life: Examining extraversion and openness as moderators. Journal of Research in Personality, 109, 104474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2024.104474
Luo, J., Zhang, B., Cao, M., & Roberts, B. W. (2023). The Stressful Personality: A Meta-Analytical Review of the Relation Between Personality and Stress. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 27(2), 128–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683221104002
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
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096
Swider, B. W., & Zimmerman, R. D. (2010). Born to burnout: A meta-analytic path model of personality, job burnout, and work outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(3), 487–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.01.003
Tippins, N. T., Sackett, P. R., & Oswald, F. L. (2018). Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 11(S1), 1–97. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2018.195
Vaziri, H., Casper, W. J., Wayne, J. H., & Matthews, R. A. (2022). A meta-analytic investigation of the personal and work-related antecedents of work–family balance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(4), 662–692. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2594
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
Young, H. R., Glerum, D. R., Wang, W., & Joseph, D. L. (2018). Who are the most engaged at work? A meta-analysis of personality and employee engagement. Journal of Organizational Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2303
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://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12683
Zimmerman, R. D. (2008). Understanding the impact of personality traits on individuals’ turnover decisions: A meta-analytic path model. Personnel Psychology, 61(2), 309–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00115.x