THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CORE SELF EVALUATIONS INDIVIDUAL LEVEL JOB PERFORMANCE AND ITS COMPONENTS

Document Sample
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CORE SELF EVALUATIONS INDIVIDUAL LEVEL JOB PERFORMANCE AND ITS COMPONENTS Powered By Docstoc
					      INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT (IJM)

ISSN 0976 – 6367(Print)
ISSN 0976 – 6375(Online)
Volume 3, Issue 2, May- August (2012), pp. 319- 334
                                                                                 IJM
© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijm.html                                            ©IAEME
Journal Impact Factor (2012): 3.5420 (Calculated by GISI)
www.jifactor.com




  THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CORE SELF EVALUATIONS,
INDIVIDUAL LEVEL JOB PERFORMANCE AND ITS COMPONENTS

                                          Karthikeyan
               National Institute of Industrial Engineering ( N I T IE ), Mumbai.

                                    Dr. Dinesh.K.Srivastava
              National Institute of Industrial Engineering ( N I T I E ), Mumbai.


ABSTRACT

             This study has made an earnest attempt to explore the relationship between Core
self evaluations ( Bottom line Evaluations individuals hold about themselves ) ,its lower order
traits – Self esteem , locus of control , generalized Self efficacy and job performance and its
components – Task performance , Adaptability, employee productivity, Job stress and
stability. Core self - evaluations was found to be a valid predictor of job performance and its
components. Among the Core self – evaluations traits, generalized self efficacy emerged as
the predominant variable having a vital impact on Job performance followed by locus of
control. The broad trait of Core – self evaluations were found to have a relatively lower effect
on Job performance when compared with its lower order traits – generalized self efficacy and
locus of control. The study was conducted amongst both executives and managers in Indian
manufacturing and service industries. The sample size was N =316.

Key words: Core self evaluations , Self esteem , locus of control , generalized self efficacy ,
Job performance

INTRODUCTION

             The primary objective of the study was to analyse the relationship between Core
self evaluations and its lower traits with Job performance and its components.

In 1997, Judge, Locke and Durham published a conceptual paper linking an integrative
personality trait termed core self – evaluations to job satisfaction. Judge’s research article
drew from eight diverse literatures (Philosophy, clinical psychology research, clinical
psychology practice, job satisfaction research, stress research, child development theory,
personality theory, and social psychology) to introduce the concept of “ core evaluations “as
an integrating principle for understanding the personological bases of job satisfaction.




                                              319
Judge et al. (1997) suggest that Core self - evaluations are fundamental, bottom-line
evaluations that individuals hold about themselves, the world, and others. According to Judge
et al. core evaluations influence people’s appraisal of themselves, the world and others, and
do so subconsciously. Thus, situation specific appraisals (for example the evaluation of one’s
work or one’s colleagues) are affected by these deeper and more fundamental self-appraisals,
even though most people are not aware of the influence their self-evaluations have on their
perceptions or behaviour as they occur. Although individuals may have core evaluations in
multiple domains (e.g., evaluations of self, evaluations of others, evaluations of the world)
early work on core evaluations (Judge, Locke, Durham, and Kluger, 1998) demonstrated that
core self-evaluations were the most important.

LITERATURE REVIEW

In their initial formulation of the core self-evaluation concept, Judge et al. (1997) searched the
literature for traits that met three criteria: self-evaluative (core traits should involve self-evaluation as
opposed to description of oneself or others) fundamentality (core traits should be fundamental as
opposed to surface traits; Cattell, 1965) and scope (core traits should be wide in scope of cardinal
traits; Allport, 1961).

Judge and colleagues      identified three traits that clearly met these criteria: self-esteem, generalized
self-efficacy, and neuroticism. Additionally, they suggested that locus of control might also qualify.

Subsequent core self-evaluations research has focused mostly on these four traits. However, Judge et
al. (1997) also discussed the possibility that other traits might be considered as indicators of core self-
evaluations. Specifically, they discussed dispositional optimism and positive and negative affectivity.
There is some evidence that dispositional optimism (Judge et al. 1998b) and negative affectivity
(Judge and Heller, 2002) are indicators of the core self-evaluations concept.

Core self - evaluations theory has its origins from the writings of clinical psychologist Packer who
suggested that individuals make general, metaphysical evaluations of themselves which
subconsciously affect specific appraisals of people and events. Judge, Lock et al. (1998) reinforced
these views by saying that subconscious conclusion that individuals reach about themselves influence
all other appraisals of the self, others, and the world.

The theory of Core self - evaluations has facilitated scholars with the framework for describing
disposition based effects on work attitudes and behaviors. (Russell E.Johnson, Christopher C. Rosen
and Paul E.Levy 2008). Judge et al. (1997) defined Core self - evaluations as basic conclusions or
bottom-line evaluation that individuals hold about themselves. This higher order construct is a broad
dispositional trait which is latent and is represented by core specific and well established traits in
personality psychology literature and is being represented by self esteem, locus of control, emotional
stability, and generalized self efficacy. The degree to which dispositional traits impact work related
attitudes is determined by three criteria: evaluation focus, fundamentality, and scope. Evaluation focus
refers to the extent to which traits involved evaluations rather than descriptions. Evaluation traits
directly impact the perceptions and attitudes of one’s self and the environment. Fundamentality refers
to traits that are most central to one’s self concept. These fundamental traits have the tendency to
affect one’s evaluations of one’s job because of the influence of peripheral traits and attitudes. The
last criterion scope refers to how broad or how narrow a trait is.

In industrial and organizational psychology research, various combinations of self esteem, locus of
control, neuroticism and generalized self efficacy have been studied in the relation with job
performance (Judge et al. 1998; Judge, Bono, J.E., and Locke, 2000; Judge, Erez, and Bono, 1998;
Judge, Locke, Durham, and Kluger, 1998). It has been found in that the four core traits load on a
single higher order latent factor. Timothy A. Judge et al. (2003) have proposed that the four traits
have conceptual similarities. An individual who scores high on Core self - evaluations is considered to


                                                    320
be an individual who is high on confidence levels and has a positive orientation towards life which
gets manifested in high levels of self esteem, emotional stability, generalized self efficacy, and
internal locus of control.

Tharenou’s (1979) study found inconsistent results in relating self esteem to job performance with
more findings with non significant relationships being on the higher side. Joel Brockner (1988) found
that there was correlation between self esteem and job performance only in certain situations. Several
theories of motivation support a link between Core self - evaluations traits and job performance.
Korman (1970) stated that individuals tend to behave in a manner which is consistent to their self
image implying that individuals with high self esteem will perform better to maintain their positive
self image. Also individuals with positive, optimistic orientation tend to increase the efforts when
faced with unfavorable circumstances whereas individuals with pessimistic orientation tend to either
lower their effort, show withdrawal symptoms and display symptoms of learned helplessness. Weiss
and Sherman (1973) stated that individuals with internal locus of control tend to increase their efforts
to match their actual standard performance. People, who have low self esteem, lower their standards
or tend to completely withdraw from the task when they are given a negative feedback.

The results demonstrated that the traits self esteem, generalized self efficacy had corrected correlation
with job performance (ρ=0.23) internal locus of control (ρ=0.22) self esteem (s= 0.26) almost
matching with generalized self efficacy exactly matching with the conscientiousness score obtained
by Barrick et al. (1991) with respect to Job performance in their meta analysis (ρ =0.23). Even though
self esteem showed the highest average correlation with job performance the correlations varied
significantly from study to study and in some cases it was zero. It can be inferred that there could be
factors across studies that moderate the impact of self esteem on job performance.

Law, Wong, and Mobley (1998) have mentioned that Core self - evaluations is a latent psychological
construct because it is the latent commonality underlying the other four dimensions. Judge and Bono
(2001b) in a meta-analysis showed that the relationship of four core traits generalized across studies.
Further they investigated the relationships of the four core traits and job performance. They found that
three of the four core traits generalized across studies. Judge et al. (2000) found that individuals with
positive self evaluations perceived the job as providing more intrinsic job characteristics which helped
them to attain jobs with higher level of complexity and challenge. Judge (2001a) showed that Core
self - evaluations were related to task activity or performance and productivity with respect to sales
volume.

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Bono, J. E. (1998) have observed that individuals with high Core self -
evaluations have more motivational levels when it comes to performing their jobs. People with more
positive self evaluations are perceived to be more effective in handling challenges and overcoming
obstacles. Judge et al. (1999) found that the ability to cope with organizational change was higher in
managers who scored high on Core self - evaluations. Judge et al. (2002) analyzed the relationship
between the Core self - evaluations and job stress and found a weighted average correlation of 0.23.

In a meta-analytic review of self esteem, generalized self efficacy, locus of control and emotional
stability, Judge and Bono (2001) demonstrated that all the four traits displayed positive non zero
correlations with job satisfaction inferring that people with high scores on positive self evaluations
were relatively happier and reported higher levels of job and life satisfaction. The Core self -
evaluations concept as a unitary construct displayed stronger correlations with work outcomes rather
than the lower order traits underlying the same. The beta coefficient values of the core traits were
considerably higher when compared with the individual traits. When evaluated as a single
independent predictor, the Core self - evaluations trait explained 27% of the variance in life
satisfaction. Research results in Japan indicate that a positive self concept is fundamental to the
formation of job and life attitudes.

J.K.Sager, H.D.Strutton, D.A.Johnson (2006) analyzed the utility of two Core self - evaluations traits-
internal locus of control and self efficacy as discriminators of job satisfaction, burn out, role conflict,


                                                   321
withdrawal, satisfaction with manager, and performance. The sample size was 452 sales people
employed by an international manufacturer and distributor of branded lines of industrial maintenance
chemicals and specialty lubricants. The results indicated that people with higher self efficacy belief
had more positive feelings towards sales jobs. Internal locus of control in combination with higher
confidence in selling skills effectively served as a counter against negativity caused by role stress in
sales job. They have further inferred that higher levels of internal locus of control has a desensitizing
effect on the emotionally exhausting effect associated with low self efficacy beliefs. It also found that
sales people high on internal locus of control are more prone to continue in a job for longer time
regardless of their beliefs in self efficacy.

Judge et al. (2005) proposed that individuals with positive Core self - evaluations or positive self
concept tend to successfully cope with external constraints because these traits facilitate successful
self regulatory behaviour. These traits have been known to foster successful self regulation since they
have positive relationship with satisfaction, coping and task performance (Blau, 1993, Judge and
Bono, 2001a, Spector, 1982). On the other hand, individuals with poor self evaluations were less
successful in coping with external constraints because of the relative unbelief in themselves to
encounter such situations. Employees with high score evaluations were able to set self-concordant
goals which paved the way for greater job satisfaction.

Joyce E.Bono, and Timothy A.Judge (2003) in a meta- analysis of the relationships between Core self
- evaluations and its role in job satisfaction and job performance found a correlation of r = 0.41 for job
satisfaction and r =0.23 for job performance. It is being perceived that Core self - evaluations might
represent a piece or portion of the personality domain or facet that has not been adequately
represented by the “Big” five factors and researchers in this regard refer to the trait of self esteem
which has been perceived to have not been represented explicitly by “Big” five. The relationships
between “Big” five personality traits and the self esteem trait of Core self - evaluations has not been
well established.

Thorsten Stumpp et.al (2009) tested which of the job characteristics (skill variety, task identity, task
significance, autonomy and feedback) mediated the relationship between Core self - evaluations and
job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The results of the sample of 199 employees
demonstrated that Core self - evaluations were related to job satisfaction and organizational
commitment. The job characteristic of task significance was found to mediate this relationship. Zeki
Simsek, Ciaran Heavey and John (Jack) F.Veiga (2010) studies suggest that CEOs whose personality
reflecting higher scores on Core self - evaluations have a strong positive influence on their firms
entrepreneurial orientation and this influence is strong in organizations facing dynamic environments
but quite negligible in stable environments.

Thomas et al. (2006) have observed that locus of control as a personality trait atleast has the same
predictive power for work outcomes comparable with the predictive power of “Big” five personality
traits. Hurtz and Donovan’s (2000) meta-analysis revealed that the “Big” five traits had lessor
predictive power when compared with the predictive power of locus of control with task performance.
(r = 0.17). Erez and Judge (2001) found that Core self - evaluations is related to goal setting
motivation which facilitates effective job performance. Amongst the four traits, locus of control had
the strongest correlations with task motivation and with goal setting motivation. Joyce E.Bono and
Judge (2003) has suggested that the four traits of Core self - evaluations can collectively represent a
broader, more construct valid measure of emotional stability.

Self Esteem
Self esteem represents an individual’s overall belief about his or her self-worth and competency.
Harter (1990) has defined self esteem as the overall value that one places on oneself as a person.
Greenwald, Bellezza, and Banaji (1988) have proposed that self esteem is the single most important
indicator of positive self concept. Costa and McCrae (1994) have demonstrated that self esteem is a
relatively sable trait over time despite its propensity to have short term fluctuations.



                                                  322
Rosenberg et al. (1995) have said that self esteem is conceptually a hierarchical construct and that
individuals may have different self perceptions of their work and competence across different roles.
The emphasis on higher order needs began with Abraham Maslow’s need hierarchy hypothesis. A
body of literature has investigated the genetic and environmental architectures that lies beneath self
esteem suggesting that genetic influences on self esteem ranges approximately between 30% to 40%.

Coopersmith (1967) has defined self esteem as a particular kind of personal construct that refers to the
manner in which individuals attribute an inferred dispositions in themselves. It includes both
cognitive and affective psychological processes to enable the person to perform, to identify and
understand his self worth. Korman (1970, 1974) has identified three kinds of self esteem namely
chronic self esteem, task specific self esteem and socially influenced self esteem. Chronic self esteem
refers to a relatively persistent personality trait that has relatively consistent occurrence across
different situations. Task specific self esteem has its origin in past experience in particular tasks and is
a reflection of one’s perceived degree of competence in doing a task. Socially influenced self esteem
is a function of another’s expectations for one’s behaviour implying that behaviour is predominantly
controlled by another person’s perception of one’s competence.

Joel Brockner (1988) has said that individuals who have low self esteem level are more reactive to
external variables there by exhibiting malleability. According to behavioral plasticity theory, high self
esteem can act as active buffer against negative conditions thereby reducing the negative impact.
Individuals with low self esteem do not have such a buffer and therefore are adversely affected by
negative circumstances. High levels of self esteem tend to weaken the relationship between roles
stressors and their outcomes. Using the behavioral plasticity theory framework, researchers have
analyzed the impact of self esteem level as a moderator of roles stressors on factors like job
satisfaction, job strain and job depression. However, researchers have found only mixed or no support
for the predictions of behavioral plasticity theory.

Recent researchers have suggested that focusing simply on self esteem level cannot provide a
comprehensive picture of the effects of self esteem on job performance since there could be
unmeasured moderators in addition to self esteem which might impact performance. They extent to
which and self esteem based on performance has been found to acts as a boundary condition for both
self consistency and behavioural plasticity theory prediction.

Self esteem plays an important role in predicting employee attitudes and behaviours. Pierce and
Gardner (2004) have said that individuals who believe themselves to be worthy and valuable in
general are likely to believe that they are worthy and valuable in specific settings like workplace. In
workplace settings, an individuals’ level of general self esteem exists prior to employment.

Nathan A.Bowling et al. (2010) have found evidence for the mediating role of organisation based self
esteem between general self esteem and work related to criteria like job satisfaction, organisational
commitment, affective commitment and job performance. On the pragmatic front, they have
suggested that if an organization is attempting to influence employees’ attitude towards themselves,
the intervention should measure an attempt to change an employees’ context specific self esteem
rather than general self esteem.

Joel Brockner and Ted Hess (1986) conducted a study on self esteem and task performance in quality
circles. Quality circles represent small groups of employees for the same department who voluntarily
and regularly interact to identify, analyse and solve problems related to work group settings. Wood et
al. (1983) have said that employees in quality circles have to believe that their support and
participation will benefit themselves as well as the organisation and they must be well trained in the
group dynamics and problem solving methods which are part of the quality control technology. Self
esteem is positively related to both the above two factors said by Wood et al. (1983) for a quality
circle’s success.




                                                   323
Kernis (2003) has differentiated between high self esteem and optimal self esteem. High self esteem is
perceived to be fragile or secure depending upon the extent to which it is defensive or genuine, stable
or unstable true or contingent and congruent or discrepant with non conscious feelings of self worth.
Optimal self esteem is characterised by qualities associated with genuine, true, stable and congruent
with unconscious self esteem.

John D. Kammeyer-Mueller and Timothy A. Judge, Ronald F. Piccolo (2008) analysed whether self
esteem will be affected by extrinsic career success and found that self esteem increased occupational
prestige and income and career outcomes did not affect self esteem.

Locus of Control

Locus of control refers to an individual’s perception that the events that happened to one are
contingent upon one’s behavior. Rotter (1966) conceptualized locus of control as a generalized
construct with internality and externality being opposite ends of a continuum. People with internal
locus of control are those who firmly believe that they are the masters of their fate and are confident,
alert and well directed in their attempts to control their external environments. They perceive a strong
link between their actions and consequences. People with external locus of control believe that they
do not have direct control over their fate and are often receptive to the dictates of the external
environment. They tend to attribute outcomes to luck or external factors.

Locus of control plays an important role in work or job performance. It is related to various
importance work outcomes like job performance and job satisfaction (Judge and Bono, 2001).
Perceived control has been examined in the psychology literature in a variety of forms. Psychologists
have identified more than 100 constructs like action control, mastery, helplessness, causal attributions,
etc., The concept of control has relationship with a multitude of cognitive, affective, behavioral, and
physiological outcomes.

Spector (1982) says that internals have higher level of job motivation, job performance, job
satisfaction, and leadership than people with external locus of control. Also internals are more or less
likely to leave their employers depending on the situation. However, Spector’s research is primarily
qualitative by nature and researchers do question the validity of his claims since it is more than two
decades old.

Judge and Bono (2001, 2003) have proposed that locus of control is one of the core components along
with generalised self efficacy, self esteem, and emotional stability of the higher order construct - Core
self evaluations . They found out the internal locus of control is related to job satisfaction (r=0.32)
and job performance (r=0.22). Locus of control is also being conceptualized as a proximal predictor of
an “individuals” well being with internal locus of control being a relatively strong factor. Lack of
control can result in lower self worth and excessive stress. It is being believed that people with better
internal locus of control have a positive rudimentary evaluation of self worth whereas the reverse is
true with externals. Internals are more sensitive to information that directly or indirectly gives a
connotation of their self worth.

Research has demonstrated that people with high external locus of control have close relationship
with the aspects of psychopathology such as depression and other personality orders. Locus of control
has correlation with both personal and professional work related outcomes like life satisfaction,
physical health and job satisfaction. Internals are perceived to be psychologically more healthier than
externals. Internal locus of control is related to global job satisfaction and specific facets of job
satisfaction like pay and promotions. It does reflect the employees’ commitments to their organization
in terms of punctuality, performance and productivity. Working for hours and higher attendance is
normally seen with employees having a positive evaluation of their work roles and the environments.
Even though internals have more turnover intentions in jobs in which they don’t have satisfaction,
they exhibit higher levels of job satisfactions in roles they tend to fit in.



                                                  324
Yukl and Latham (1978) found that internals have a tendency to set more difficult goals and have
stronger need for achievements. Phares (1976) is of the view that internals are more prone to defer
gratification to satisfy their need for achievements. Research has suggested that those employees who
perceived greater control have higher work motivational levels and it propels them to exert greater
effort on work tasks. Mudrack (1990) while analyzing machiavellianism and locus of control in a
meta analytic study has said that internals rely more on their efforts to obtain desired results rather
than using manipulation and deception as tools.

Internals have stronger faith in both the effort – performance and performance reward relationships.
Internals perceived that they can obtain more desirable work outcomes then externals. Locus of
control can be considered as a personality trait that predicts one’s internal motivation and the belief in
his ability to achieve desirable goals more. Optimistic people show higher involvement in jobs and
exhibit greater engagements in developmental activities. They have a strong sense of empowerment
because of their belief that they are able to take control and make choices indicating their power
potential (Liden and Arad, 1996). Internals’ motivation is manifested in high task performance
because they see the rewards for working hard. Previous research has shown a positive relationship
between job motivation and performance on core task. Internals have a tendency to seek situations
wherein there is a high probability for exercising control over environments. Kahle (1980) found that
internals showed preference for tasks requiring skills whereas external preferred tasks requiring luck. .

Thomas et al. (2006) have found that locus of control was related to job satisfaction (r=0.33) task
performance (r=0.17) and self efficacy (r=0.28). Locus of control has demonstrated comparable
predictive power compared to the Big five personality traits. They also found that people with high
internal locus of control perceived a high probability of attaining their desired outcomes by virtue of
their efforts whereas individuals with external locus of control had less control over the desired
outcomes.

Avtgis (1998) in a meta analysis have found that internal locus of control was negatively related to
susceptibility to persuasion implying that they may be more stubborn and hard to influence. The
person-organisational fit theory (Judge and Cable, 1997) suggests that employees with an internal
locus of control will function better when they are working in cultures that has harmony with their
attributes. Lack of synergy between one’s locus of control and cultures might inhibit performance and
its outcome. Managerial and leadership effectiveness can be increased by understanding the potential
power of subordinates’ control belief. The personality power of locus of control helps in predicting
employees’ work place attitudes and behavior.

Rebecca P. Ang and Weinning C Chang (1999) while analyzing the impact of domain specific locus
of control on need for achievement and affiliation have found out domain specific measures of locus
of control are better predictors of behavior for respective domain relevant goals than for goals in the
non related view. Schilett (1986) examined upward influencing capabilities of 60 managers regarding
a variety of strategic decisions. The results indicated that managers who had a high need of
achievement and an internal locus of control were more influential in strategic decisions than
managers having an external locus of control and a lower need for achievement. Organ and Green
(1974) studying a sample of scientists and engineers found external locus of control to be positively
associated with role ambiguity and negatively associated with work satisfaction.

The most commonly measure of locus of control is Rotter’s (1996) which has a reliability of 0.70 and
the Spector’s (1998) work locus of control scale with a reliability of 0.78. Ng. Sorensen, and Eby
(2006) in a meta-analysis demonstrated locus of control as a predictor of burn-out

Miller (1983) studied the impact of locus of control and strategy variables from top executives
belonging to various industries in 52 medium and large firms. Factors like risk taking, innovations and
pro -activeness of simple and planning firms were predicted by locus of control of top executives.
Miller and Toulouse (1986 b ) found that internal locus of control correlated with relative
performance within dynamic environments. There was substantial increase in actual sales growth and


                                                  325
net income growth in all environments. Govindarajan (1989) by studying a sample of 105 general
managers from strategic business units found that internal locus of control was positively related to
effectiveness for strategic business units with differentiation strategy but negatively related to
effectiveness for strategic business units with a low cost strategy. Wally and Baum (1994) conducted
a study on the pace of decision making and locus of control on 151 CEOs from the manufacturing
sector and found that locus of control was not related to decision making, cognitive complexity,
centralisation or experience. It rather related to increased formalisation, risk propensity and use of

Generalized self efficacy
Generalized self efficacy refers to a judgment of how well an individual can perform across a variety
of situations. Bandura (1997) observed that self efficacy makes a difference to how people feel, think,
and act. Bandura (1982) has defined self efficacy as judgment of how well one can perform behaviors
necessary to deal with prospective situations. In short, it reflects self confidence. People with high self
efficacy choose to set themselves higher goals and perform challenging tasks. Highly self-efficacious
people invest more effort and exhibit perseverance when compared to people low in self efficacy.
Even in the midst of setbacks they recover more quickly. High self efficacy enables actions to be pre-
shaped in thought, and makes people action oriented. It is of a prospective and operative nature.
Bandura (1997) mentions that perceived self efficacy can be characterized as being competence
based, prospective, and action related, as opposed to similar constructs that share only part of this
portrayal. General self efficacy is associated with a broad and stable sense of personal competence to
deal effectively with a variety of stressful situations. Self efficacy beliefs influence motivational
processes and behaviors and achievements.

Persons with low self efficacy have low self esteem and have a tendency to have pessimistic thoughts.
Persons with high self regulations are expected to be high on generalized self efficacy for self
regulation refers to any effort by an individual to alter their own responses by controlling impulses.

Generalized self efficacy beliefs are expected to be negatively related or unrelated to the tendency to
make social comparison. According to Gibbons and Buunk (1999) social comparison orientation is a
tendency to compare oneself to others in different areas of life and comparison oriented people asses
their own ability on the basis of other people’s judgment but not on their beliefs. Jerusalem and
Schwarzer (1992) mentioned that people with strong efficacy perceived stressful situations as more
challenging and overcame obstacles. Bandura (1997) mentions that self efficacy determines the
cognitive appraisal of stressful situations. A low sense of self efficacy is normally associated with
negative emotions and helplessness. Those who are high in self efficacy have been found to be more
successful in solving conceptual problems at work.

Marisa Salanova, et al. (2002) tested the moderating the role of self efficacy in terms of generalized
self efficacy and computer self efficacy in the job demand control model and its effect on burn-out.
Based on data collected from 405 employees using information technology as a vital tool, the
researchers found that more specific level of self efficacy moderated the relationship between job
demands and controls and levels of burn-out dimension.

Generalised self efficacy has strong correlations with self esteem since, it refers to an individuals’
judgment or perceptions of this capabilities to handle challenges in life effectively. However, self
efficacy cannot serve as a substitute for self esteem since what an individual masters across situations
(self efficacy) may not be rudimental to what is being valued by the individuals in expressing his self
worth. Research indicates that self efficacy is related to task effort and performance, persistence,
resilience in the face of failure, effective problem solving, and self control. Thus, high generalised self
efficacy can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy with respect to success rate (Hysong and Quinones,
1997).

Research Design: Survey study was used for the controlled testing of the causal processes
i.e., to determine the effect of Variable/ variables on the other


                                                   326
The study was designed to analyze both the significance of relationship between the variables
and the effect of independent variables on the dependent variable. The Non – probability
sampling method (Purposive sampling) was used. Primary data collection pertaining to the
variables under study was done by administering the research questionnaires to the willing
respondents in person. The study was done in two phases. A pilot study was done to test the
reliability and validity of the questionnaires and then the main study was conducted.

Sampling

The respondents were primarily chosen from well –established and reputed organizations.
Most of the companies chosen were in the top segments of their respective businesses and
product domains. Both the manufacturing and services sector were considered and taken up
for the study.

The sample included working individual’s right from the trainee level to senior management
professionals in the executive cadre. The individual employees who answered the
questionnaires were those who were either chosen by the company or who voluntarily agreed
to fill up the questionnaires upon request. The Non – probability sampling method of
purposive sampling was used in the selection of departments and individuals.

All the variables Core self evaluations and Job performance were aimed at capturing self
perceived personality and job performance. On the job performance index, self perceived job
performance was accepted since the organizations are disinclined to share the performance
ratings of their employees to outsiders as a policy to maintain confidentiality.

The questionnaire was administered to respondents individually or in groups after elaborating
them about the research objectives and the significance of each of the sections in the
study.The sample size was N = 316.

Measurement

The following instruments were used for measuring the variables
       1. Core self - evaluations scale (CSES).
       2. Job performance.

       .
Core self - evaluations scale ( CSES ) : The Core self - evaluations scale developed by
Timothy A.Judge, Amir Erez, Joyce E.Bono, Carl E.Thoresen (2003) is a direct and relatively
brief measure of the trait “ Core self - evaluations”. Out of the 12 items given by them, only
10 items have been taken up .The items which were excluded were from the neuroticism
domain. This was done to exclude the items from the CSES scale but also to test its
reliability and validity of CSES as a personality measure minus the factor of neuroticism. The
cronbach alpha (coefficient of reliability) for the instrument was 0.705 for the sample size of
316 in the current study.


Job Performance : Job- Performance: The researcher constructed a concise 26 item scale of
Job performance to measure five main factors (Task Performance, Adaptability, Employee
Efficiency/Productivity, Job stress and stability) associated with the performance of a job.
The Cronbach alpha (Coefficient consistency) for this scale was 0.832 for the sample studied


                                             327
Job performance refers to actions that contribute to organizational goals and that are under
the individual’s control. After reviewing taxonomies of job performance, researchers have
felt the need to broaden the scope of job performance by not restricting it to duties and
responsibilities alone (Task performance). The various other factors which account for
performance with respect to a job viz., adaptability, job stress, employee
productivity/efficiency, stability have been taken as components to measure the macro factor
of Job performance.

Task performance: The proficiency with which job incumbents perform activities that are
formally recognized as part of their jobs; activities that contribute to the organization's
technical core either directly or by implementing a part of its technological process, or
indirectly by providing it with needed materials or services.

Adaptive Performance: Proficiency with which a person alters his or her behavior to meet
the demands of the environment.

Employee Productivity/efficiency: measures how the output of the employee has changed
over time with respect to” human resources efforts input “ignoring the constitutions from
other factors.

Job stress: a dynamic condition in which an individual is confronted with an opportunity,
constraint or demand related to his job for which the outcome is perceived to be both
uncertain and important. Stability of Performance: An individual’s consistency in performing
jobs over time

Data Collection

Data collection was done in a systematic manner. In the first phase, a pilot study was
undertaken to test the reliability and validity of the questionnaire developed. The number of
respondents envisaged for the pilot study was 60. After getting convincing results for the
reliability and validity measures, the data collection process was taken up for the sample size
estimated. The questionnaires were administrated to each of the individuals in person after
briefly explaining to them the objectives of the study. In some of the organization, the data
was collected by organizing the members in groups of 20- 30 in batches and then
administered


Results and Discussion

Correlation matrix – Core self - evaluations (CSES) – Job performance and its
components:
Core self - evaluations had significant correlations with its lower order traits – self esteem (r
= 0.741, p < 0.01) locus of control (r = 0.678, p < 0.01) and generalized self efficacy (r =
0.375, p < 0.01). The finding reinforces the established fact in CSES research (Judge and
Bono, 2002) that the lower order traits have correlations with the latent underlying broad trait
of Core self - evaluations.

Core self - evaluations had significant relationships with job performance and its
components. With job performance it had a correlation of (r = 0.210, p < 0.01). It had
correlations of (r = 0.267, p < 0.01) with task performance (r = 0.253, p < 0.01) with


                                              328
adaptability (r = 0.303, p < 0.01) with employee productivity/efficiency. It had negative
correlations with job stress (r = -0.253, p < 0.01) and with stability (r = -0.167, p < 0.01).
The negative correlation of Core self - evaluations with job stress does substantiate that
employees with a positive self concept (the other name for Core self - evaluations) have the
ability to handle stress.

Table 1 : Correlation matrix – Core self - evaluations (CSES) – Job performance and its
components


N=316
                                                                    Generalised                                       Employee
                                                         Locus of                    Job        Task
                                 CSES Self Esteem                       Self                            Adaptability Productivity/ Job Stress Stability
                                                          Control               Performance Performance
                                                                     Efficacy                                         Efficiency
CSES                                1

Self Esteem                      .741**         1
Significance                      0.01
Locus of Control                 .678**      .308**            1
Significance                      0.01        0.01
Generalised Self Efficacy        .735**      .221**       .316**         1
Significance                      0.01        0.01         0.01
Job Performance                  .210**      -0.013       .149**      .322**         1
Significance                      0.01        0.817        0.008       0.01
Task Performance                 .267**       0.081       .153**      .337**       .851**          1
Significance                      0.01        0.153        0.007       0.01         0.01
Adaptability                     .253**        0.1        .151**      .290**       .715**       .545**         1
Significance                      0.01        0.075        0.007       0.01         0.01         0.01
Employee Productivity/
                                 .303**       .125*       .194**      .333**       .820**       .681**       .540**         1
Efficiency
Significance                       0.01       0.027        0.001       0.01         0.01          0.01         0.01
Job Stress                       -.253**     -.340**      -0.106      -0.077       .186**       -0.103       -.193**      -0.058        1
Significance                       0.01        0.01        0.061       0.17         0.001        0.068        0.001       0.301
Stability                        -.167**     -.199**      -0.035      -0.101       .346**        .121*        0.059       0.106       .279**      1
Significance                      0.003        0.01        0.53        0.073        0.01        0.032         0.297       0.061        0.01
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).




Self esteem did not have significant correlation with job performance, task performance, and
adaptability. However, the data showed that it had significant correlations with employee
productivity/efficiency (r = 0.135, p < 0.01). It had comparatively higher negative
correlations with job stress (r = -0.340, p < 0.01) and with stability (r = 0.199, p < 0.01).
Locus of control and generalized self efficacy had significant positive correlations with job
performance, task performance, and adaptability and employee productivity. They did not
have significant relationship with either job stress or stability. Generalized self efficacy had a
significant positive correlation (r = 0.322, p < 0.01) with job performance (r = 0.337, p <
0.01) with task performance (r = 0.290, p < 0.01) with adaptability (r = 0.33, p < 0.01) with
employee productivity/efficiency. Locus of control had relatively lesser correlation with job
performance and its components when compared with generalized self efficacy. Locus of
control had a correlation of (r = 0.149, p < 0.01) with job performance (r = 0.153, p < 0.01)
with task performance (r = 0.151, p < 0.01) with adaptability and (r = 0.194, p < 0.01) with
employee productivity/efficiency.




                                                                             329
Table 2 Multiple Regression - Enter Method -Core-Self Evaluation (Self Esteem, Locus
of Control, Generalized Self Efficacy) - Job Performance
             ( N = 316)

             Sr.       Independent      / Dependent       R     R2    F                        Sig.,
             No.       emerging           Variable                    Value
                       variable(s)
             1.        Self Esteem
             2.        Locus of Control   Job Performance 0.368 0.135 16.257                   0.01
             3.        Generalized Self-
                       efficacy

A multiple regression analysis showed that the traits of Core self - evaluations – Self esteem,
locus of control and generalized self efficacy collectively have an impact of 13.5 %
significant at 0.01 level. This is over and above the 9.9 % variance influenced by the big five
factors of personality. In this study, the results show that the Core self - evaluations traits are
able to predict more variance when compared with the predictive ability of Big five factors of
personality with respect to job performance.


Table 3: Multiple Regression – Stepwise Method Core-Self Evaluation (Self Esteem,
Locus of Control, Generalized Self Efficacy) - Job Performance
             ( N = 316)

   Sr.   Independent /                                       R2
                          Dependent                      2                     F
   No    emerging                         R          R       Chan    Std., β         Sig.,
                          Variable                                             Value
   .     variable(s)                                         ge
         Generalized      Job             0.322
   1.                                     a          0.104   0.104   0.287     36.33    0.01
         Self-Efficacy    Performance
         Locus       of   Job             0.352
   2.                                     b          0.124   0.020   0.157     22.15    0.01
         Control          Performance
                          Job             0.368                                16.25
   3.    Self Esteem                      c          0.135   0.011   -0.108             0.01
                          Performance                                          7

Predictor: - a – Generalized Self-Efficacy
Predictors: - b – Generalized Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control
Predictors: - c – Generalized Self Efficacy, Locus of Control, Self Esteem.

A stepwise multiple regression showed that all the three variables considered under the broad
trait of Core self - evaluations were significant predictors of job performance. Generalised
self efficacy emerged as the significant and predominant predictor of job performance among
the three traits accounting for a variance of 10.4 % significant at 0.01 level (Table .25). The
variable locus of control explained an additive variance of 2 % taking the collective impact to
12.4 % (Hypothesis 8 is supported).Self esteem explained an additive variance of 1.1 %
taking the collective impact to 13.5 %.It can be seen that the variables self esteem, locus of
control and generalized self efficacy explained together 13.5 % of variance on job
performance.The broad trait core self – evaluations as an individual variable explained only
4.4 % of variance showing that the individual traits collectively are more powerful predictors
of job performance when compCore self - evaluations and Job Performance:


                                               330
In the correlation matrix, Core self - evaluations (the composite score of self –esteem, locus
of control and generalized self- efficacy) had significant correlations with Job performance (r
=0.210) and the components of Task Performance (r =0.267) Adaptability (r=0.253).
Employee efficiency/ Productivity (r =0.0303) Job stress (r =-0.167). In the study conducted
by Timothy Judge and Joyce Bono (2003) the correlation between Core self - evaluations and
Job performance was 0.23. The results of our study do closely match with the scores obtained
by Judge and Bono (2003).


Table : 4 Regression – Enter Method -Core self - evaluations – Job Performance
Sr. Independent Dependent                     Std.  F
                            R     R2    β                  Sig.,
No. Variable    Variable                      β     Value
    Core self - Job
1.                          0.210 0.044 0.415 0.210 14.461 0.01
    evaluations Performance


Table :5 Regression – Enter Method -Core self - evaluations – Components of Job
Performance

Sr.
      Independent    Dependent
No                             R           R2       β       Std. β    F Value Sig.,
      Variable       Variable
.
                  Task
      Core self -
1.                Performan       0.267    0.071    0.239   0.267     24.156    0.01
      evaluations
                  ce
      Core self - Adaptabili
2.                                0.253    0.064    0.167   0.253     21.523    0.01
      evaluations ty
                  Employee
      Core self - efficiency
3.                                0.303    0.092    0.199   0.303     31.726    0.01
      evaluations /Productiv
                  ity
      Core self -
4.                Job Stress      0.253    0.064    0.136   0.253     21.50     0.01
      evaluations
      Core self -
5.                Stability       0.167    0.028    0.053   0.167     9.042     0.01
      evaluations


Core self - evaluations, the broad, latent underlying characteristic of variables like self –
esteem, locus of control and generalized self efficacy did have a significant impact on job
performance explaining a variance of 4.4 % significant at 0.01 level(Table . 36). It explained
significant variance with the all the components of job performance explaining variances of
7.1 % with task performance,6.4% with adaptability,9.2% with employee efficiency or
productivity, 6.4 % with job stress and 2.8 % with stability.The results demonstrate that Core
self - evaluations or positive self – concept does have a significant impact on job performance
and its components implying that as a personality variable, it has its own predictive validity
with respect to job performance like the other personality model - five factor model of
personality.




                                             331
CONCLUSION
One important aspect of Core self - evaluations research has been its focus on the relationships among several
important personality traits like self esteem , locus of control and generalized self efficacy which have been
largely considered in isolation Although personality psychologists may have differing views with respect to
practical or theoretical utility of the broad trait of Core self - evaluations and the lower order or narrow traits
associated with the same , it is critical for the advancement of psychology to understand and explain
redundancies between related traits. It is imperative on the part of psychologists and practitioners to analyze the
conditions or industrial settings under which either the Core self - evaluations can be used as an unitary
construct across industries and jobs in determining job performance or it has to be customized based on industry
type or jobs to increase its predictive validity with respect to job performance. Future research should focus on
whether mediating variables like job characteristics should be mandatorily included as a major intervening
variable when studying the relationship between Core self - evaluations and job performance to enhance its
practical applicability.Morever, the issue of when to use the narrow traits of Core self - evaluations and when to
use the broad trait of Core self - evaluations in organizational settings needs to be studied in detail. Core self -
evaluations does throw light on the positive self – concept index and the self – awareness level of individuals. It
can be directly applied towards understanding work place attitudes and behaviors. Among the Core self -
evaluations traits, generalized self efficacy emerged as the predominant variable having a vital impact on Job
performance followed by locus of control. The broad trait of Core - self evaluations were found to have a
relatively lower effect on job performance when compared with its lower order traits, generalized self efficacy
and locus of control.

REFERENCES

    1.    Allport, G.W., & Odbert, H.S. (1936). Trait names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological
          Monographs, 47 (1, whole No.211).
    2.    Allport, G.W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt.
    3.    Avtgis,T.A.(1998).Locus of control and persuasion, social influence, and conformity: A meta –
          analytic review. Psychological Reports,83,899 – 903.
    4.    Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.
    5.    Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
    6.    Barrick, M.R. & Mount ,M.K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and Job performance : A
          meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology,44 , 1-26.
    7.    Blau,G. (1993). Testing the relationship of locus of control to different performance dimensions.
          Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 125-138.
    8.    Brockner, J. (1979). The effects of self-esteem, success-failure, and self-consciousness on task
          performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1732-1741.
    9.    Cattell RB. (1965). The Scientific Analysis of Personality. Penguin: Baltimore, MD.
    10.   Ceasar Douglas, Dwight D. Frink, & Gerald R. Ferris (2004). Emotional Intelligence as a Moderator of
          the Relationship between Conscientiousness and Performance. Journal of Leadership and
          Organizational Studies, 2004, Vol. 10, No. 3.
    11.   Coopersmith, S. (1959). A method for determining types of self-esteem. Journal of Abnormal & Social
          psychology, 59, 87-94.
    12.   Costa, P T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1994). Set like plaster? Evidence for the stability of adult personality.
          In T. F. Heatherton & J. L. Weinberger (Eds.) Can personality change? (pp. 2 1-40). Washington, DC:
          American Psychological Association..
    13.   Erez, A., & Judge,T.A. (2001). Relationship of core self – evaluations to goal setting, motivation and
          performance. Journal of Applied psychology, 86, 1270 -1279.
    14.   Gibbons, F. X., & Buunk, B. P. (1999). Individual differences in social comparison: Development of a
          scale of social comparison orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 129–142.
    15.   Govindarajan V.( 1989).Implementing competitive strategies at the business unit level:implications of
          matching managers to strategies.Strategic Management Journal 10(3):251 – 269.
    16.   Greenwald, A. G., Bellezza, F. S., & Banaji, M.R. (1988). Is self-esteem a central ingredient of the
          self-concept? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 34-45.
    17.   Harter S.( 1990).Causes,correlates, and the functional role of global self – worth: a life – span
          perspective.In Competence Considered, Sternberg RJ, Kolligan J ( eds). Yale University Press: New
          Haven, CT ; 67-97.
    18.   Hayashi, C. (1998). The quantitative study of national character. International Journal of Comparative
          Sociology, 39, 91-114.
    19.   Hurtz, G.M., & Donovan, J.J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal
          of Applied Psychology, 85, 869-879.


                                                        332
20. Hysong, S.J., & Quinones, M.A. (1997, April). The relationship between self-efficacy and
    performance: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and
    Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MO.
21. Jerusalem, M., & Schwarzer, R. (1992). Self-Efficacy as a resource factor in stress appraisal. In R.
    Schwarzer (Ed.) Self-efficacy: Though control of action (pp. 195-216). Washington, DC: hemisphere.
22. Jex, S.M. (1998). Stress and job performance: Theory, research and implications for managerial
    practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23. J.K.Sager, H.D.Strutton, D.A.Johnson (2006) Core Self-evaluations and Salespeople, Psychology &
    Marketing, Vol.23(2): 95-113.
24. Joel Brockner & Ted Hess (1986). Self-Esteem and Task Performance In Quality Circles. Academy of
    Management Journal, 1986, Vol. 29, No. 3, 617-623.
25. Joel Brockner (1988). Self-esteem at Work: Research, Theory, and Practice. Lexington Books:
    Lexington, MA.
26. John D. Kammeyer-Kueller and Timothy A. Judge, Ronald F. Piccolo (2008). Self-Esteem and
    Extrinsic Career Success: Test of a dynamic Model. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57
    (2) 204-224.
27. John M. Digman (1997). Higher-Order Factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social
    Psychology, 1997, Vol. 73, No. 6, 1246-1256.
28. Joyce E.Bono, & Timothy A.Judge (2003) Core Self-Evaluations: A Review of the Trait and its Role in
    Job Satisfaction and Job Performance. European Journal of Personality Eur.J. Pers. 17: S5-S18.
29. Judge et al. (1999). Managerial coping with organizational change: a dispositional perspective. Journal
    of Applied Psychology 84: 107-122.
30. Judge, T.A., & Bono, J. E. (2001a). Relationship of Core self - evaluations traits-self-esteem,
    generalized self efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability-with job satisfaction and job
    performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80-92.
31. Judge, T.A., & Bono, J. E. (2001b). A rose by any other name. Are self esteem, generalized self
    efficacy, neuroticism, and locus of control indicators of a common construct? In B. W. Roberts, & R.
    Hogan (Eds.) Personality psychology in the workplace (pp. 93–118). Washington, DC: American
    Psychological Association.
32. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. (2005). Core self-evaluations and job and life
    satisfaction: The role of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 257-
    268.
33. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role
    of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 237-249.
34. Judge, T.A., & Cable, D.M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and organization
    attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50, p359-394.
35. Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Bono, J. E. (1998). The power of being positive: The relation between
    positive self-concept and job performance. Human, 11, 167-187.
36. Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Bono, J. E. & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The core self-evaluation scale:
    Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56, 303-331.
37. 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, 530-541.
38. Judge, T.A., Higgins, C.A., Thoresen, C.J., & Barrick, M.R.(1999). The Big Five personality traits,
    general mental ability, and career across the life span. Personnel Psychology,52,621-652.
39. Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A
    core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151-181.
40. Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Klunger, A. N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and
    life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 107-122.
41. Judge, T. A., Theoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job-satisfaction-job
    performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376-407.
42. Kahle,L.R.( 1980).Stimulus condition self –selection by males in the interaction of locus of control and
    skill – chance situations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,38,50-56.
43. Kernis MH. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 1–
    26.
44. Korman, A.K. (1970). Toward a hypothesis of work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 31-
    41.
45. Korman,A.K.(1974).The Psychology of Motivation.Eaglewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice – Hall.
46. Law,K.S.,       Wong,C.S.,&Mobley,W.H.(1998).Toward            a     taxonomy     of    multidimensional
    constructs.Academy of Management Review,23,741-755.



                                                 333
47. Liden, R.C., & Arad,S.( 1996). A power perspective of empowerment and work groups: Implications
    for human resource management research.Research in Personnel and Human Resource
    Management,14,205 – 251.
48. Marisa Salanova, Jose M.Peiro, Wilmar B.Schaufeli (2002). Self-efficacy specificity and burnout
    amoung information technology workers: An extension of the job demand-control model. European
    Journal of Work andOrganizational Psychology, 11(1) p1-25.
49. Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). Structural models of personality and their relation to antisocial
    behavior: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 39, 765–798.
50. Miller D.( 1983).The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms.Management Science 29:
    770-791.
51. Miller D, Toulouse J-M.1986b.Chief executive personality and corporate strategy and structure in
    small firms.Management Science 32: 1389 – 1409.
52. Mudrack, P.E. (1990). Machiavellianism and locus of control: A meta-analytic review. Journal of
    Social Psychology, 130, 125-126.
53. Nathan A. Bowling, Kevin j. Eschelman, Qiang Wang, Cristina Kirkendall & Gene              (2010).    A
    meta-analysis of the predictors and consequences of organization-based self-esteem. Journal of
    Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2010) 83, 601-626.
54. Ng, T. W. H., Sorensen, K. L., & Yim, F. H. K. (2009). Does the job satisfaction-job performance
    relationship vary across cultures? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40(5) 761-796.
55. Organ, D.W., & Green, C.N. (1974). Role Ambiguity, Locus of Control and Work Satisfaction: Journal
    of Applied Psychology, 59, 101-102.
56. Phares,E.J.(1976).Locus of control in personality.Morristown,NJ:General Learning Press.
57. Rebecca P. Ang and Weinning C Chang (1999).Impact of Domain – Specific Locus of Control on
    Need for Achievement and Affiliation.The Journal of Social Psychology,1999,139(4)527 – 529.
58. Rosenberg, M., Schooler, C., Schoenbach, C., & Rosenberg, F. (1995). Global self-esteem and specific
    self-esteem: Different concepts, different outcomes. American Sociological Review, 60, 141–156.
59. Rosaline Hiroschowitz( 2001).Behavioral and Personality Correlates of a Need for Power in a Group of
    English –Speaking South African Women.
60. Roth K.1995.Managing international Interdependence:CEO characteristics in a resource – based
    framework.Academy of Management Journal 38: 200 – 231.
61. Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
    Psychological Monographs, 80 (Whole No.609).
62. Russell E. Johnson, Christopher C. Rosen and Paul E. Levy (2008). Getting to the core of core self –
    evaluation: a review and recommendations , Journal of organizational behavior 29,391 – 413.
63. Schilett, W.V. (1986). An Examination of Individual Differences as Moderators of upward Influence
    Activity in Strategic Decision-Making: Human Relations, 39(10) 933-953..
64. Spector, P.E. (1982). Behavior in organizations as a function of employees’ locus of control.
    Psychological Bulletin, 91, 482-497.
65. Tharenou P. (1979). Employee self-esteem: a review of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior.
    15: 316-346.
66. Thomas W. H. NG, Kelly L. Sorensen & Lillian T. Eby (2006). Locus of control at work: a meta-
    analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1057-1087 (2006).
67. Thorsten Stumpp et.al( 2009).Expanding the link between core self – evaluations and affective job
    attitudes.European journal of work and organizational psychology,18(2)148-166.
68. Wally S, Baum JR.( 1994).Personal and structural determinants of the pace of strategic decision
    making. Academy of Management Journal 37 : 932 – 956.
69. Weiss, H.,& Sherman,J.(1973).Internal – external control as a predictor of task effort and satisfaction
    subsequent to falilure.Journal of Applied Psychology,57,132 – 136.
70. Wood,R.,Hull,F., & Azumi,K.(1983).Evaluating quality circles:The American application.California
    Management Review,26(1):37-53.
71. Yukl, G.A., & Latham, G.P. (1978). Interrelationships among employee participation, individual
    differences, goal difficulty, goal acceptance, goal instrumentality, and performance. Personnel
    Psychology, 31, 305-323.
72. Zeki Simsek, Ciaran Heavey and John (Jack) F.Veiga (2010). The impact of CEO core self-evaluation
    on the firm’s entrepreneurial orientation. Strategic Management Journal, Strat, Mgmt. J.,31: 110-119.




                                                 334

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:1
posted:11/20/2012
language:
pages:16