Individual Differences

Researchers have argued that individual differences are important for career success because career decisions and actions over time may be driven by core attitudes, behaviours and skills which may be influenced by personality and ability (Ng et al., 2005; Seibert et al., 1999). For example, certain personality traits may mean that individuals are better at developing relationships with key decision makers and attracting career sponsorship, which can aid success (Turban & Dougherty, 1994). Therefore this section discusses three aspects of individual differences research that have received most attention in the career success literature: the five factor model

of personality, proactive personality and cognitive ability.

Personality: F ive F actor Model

Most studies of personality and career success have utilised the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality that encompasses five broad traits: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism (or emotional stability) and openness to experience (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002). The model has been found to generalise across many cultures and remains reasonably stable over time (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1990; Salgado, 1997).

Although findings from research on majority-ethnic samples has been inconsistent, in general, there is some evidence to suggest that conscientiousness, extraversion and emotional stability are positively related to extrinsic and intrinsic career success, with emotional stability having a stronger relationship with intrinsic success. Agreeableness has been found to be negatively related to extrinsic career success (Boudreau, 2001; Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2007; Seibert & Kraimer, 2001; Sutin, Costa, Miech, & Eaton, 2009).

Despite interest in personality and career success in majority-ethnic research, there has been no research examining personality and ethnicity in relation to career

29

success. However, there has been research on group differences in personality, irrespective of career success. A recent meta-analysis using over 700 effect sizes and 44 personality instruments found only negligible differences on the Big Five between Asian, black, Hispanic and white groups (Foldes, Dueher, & Ones, 2008). The authors concluded that such differences would be unlikely to cause adverse impact in formal selection or promotion processes.

These findings indicate that differential career success should not be attributable to differences in personality between groups. However, research has also suggested that different personality traits may be more, or less valued in different roles (Arnold & Cohen, 2008; Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2007). Research on person-environment fit also suggests that minority-ethnic employees may not be given the same opportunity as majority-ethnic employees to go into roles that are congruent with their personality, leading to lower levels of job satisfaction (Lovelace & Rosen, 1996). Nevertheless, there has been little consideration of the possibility of differential treatment of minority-ethnic groups, or discrimination in the individual differences literature.

Proactive Personality

Whilst there is conflicting evidence of the effect of the Big Five, there is an increasing interest in the possible role of proactive personality in career success. Proactive personality pertains to the degree individuals identify and act on opportunities, take the initiative, incite change and persevere (Thomas, Whitman, & Viswesvaran, 2010, p. 276). In a sample of 496 majority- and minority-ethnic employees, Seibert et al (1999) found that proactive personality was positively associated with salary, promotions and career satisfaction, over and above demographic, human capital, motivational and organisational indicators. Although ethnicity was not the primary focus of the study, they did report that there was no difference in proactive personality between white (who comprised 96% of the sample) and non-white participants, which is consistent with other research (e.g. Lambert, Eby, & Reeves, 2006).

30

Research has found that the relationship between proactive personality and career success is mediated by factors such as networking, political knowledge and career initiative (Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001; Thomas et al., 2010). Although there has been no research on proactive personality and differential career success, if being minority-ethnic affects the opportunity to build instrumental networks, or gain political knowledge, as found in previous research (e.g. Ferris, Frink, Bhawuk, Zhou, & Gilmore, 1996; Ibarra, 1995), then being proactive may not be as beneficial for minority-ethnic groups. Furthermore, Hu, Thomas and Lance (2008) propose that stereotypical beliefs about certain groups may influence the effectiveness of proactive behaviour. It is therefore important that research considers how ethnicity may influence the successful implementation of proactive behaviours.

Cognitive Ability

Cognitive ability has been found to be one of the best predictors of job performance in majority-ethnic samples across many occupations (Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Schmidt & Hunter, 2004). Thus, cognitive ability positively influences job performance throughout individuals’ careers and can result in individuals moving into more prestigious and higher paid roles and receiving more opportunities for promotion (Dreher & Bretz, 1991; Ng & Feldman, 2010; Wilka, Desmarais, & Sackett, 1995). Only weak or inconsistent relationships have been found between cognitive ability and intrinsic success (Ganzach, 1998; Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999). However, strong associations have been found between cognitive ability and extrinsic success, for example, Judge et al (1999) followed 354 individuals from childhood to retirement and found cognitive ability predicted their salary and hierarchical position later in life.

Ethnic group differences on cognitive ability tests have received considerable attention within psychological research for several decades (e.g. Sackett, Schmitt, Ellingson, & Kabin, 2001; Spearman, 1927). In a meta-analysis, Roth et al (2006) found that black individuals tend to score one standard deviation below white individuals in corporate settings. This has meant that examining group differences on cognitive ability has been controversial. It has also led to research ‘blaming the

31

victim’, implying that differential work outcomes for minority groups are due to lower cognitive ability, rather than external barriers such as discrimination (Nkomo, 1992).

However, research has found it is not just prior ability that leads to differential test scores, but also aspects of the testing context. For example, African Americans have been found to score higher on tests when they are given a social context, (e.g. via telephone or video), rather than when they require abstract thinking (e.g. pencil and paper: Chan & Schmitt, 1997; Schmitt & Mills, 2001). Research also suggests that motivation, test taking anxiety and the perceived threat of being stereotyped can affect test scores (Ryan & Ployhart, 2000; Schmader, 2010; Steele & Aronson, 1995).

Nevertheless, findings that minority-ethnic groups score differently on cognitive ability tests suggest that they will be less likely than majority-ethnic individuals to be selected and promoted through formal processes and therefore experience differential career success (Bobko, Roth, & Potosky, 1999). Importantly though, other groups, such as Hispanic and Asian Americans have been found to score higher than whites (Suzuki & Valencia, 1997). Yet, research has found that Asian groups are less likely to achieve career success compared to their white colleagues (Tang, 1993, 2000). These findings raise questions about whether cognitive ability is a direct predictor of career success for minority-ethnic employees, suggesting that there may be other factors that affect the impact of cognitive ability in the workplace.