Personality Traits and Career Satisfaction in Training and Development Occupations: Toward a Distinctive T&D Personality Profile

• Published date: 01 March 2016
• Date: 01 March 2016
• Author: John W. Lounsbury,Jason L. Huang,Eric D. Sundstrom,Lucy W. Gibson
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21223

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol. 27, no. 1, Spring 2016 © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.21223 13

QUANTITATIVE STUDY

Personality Traits and Career

Satisfaction in Training and

Development Occupations:

Toward a Distinctive T&D

Personality Profile

Eric D. Sundstrom , John W. Lounsbury , Lucy W. Gibson , Jason L. Huang

As careers in training and development (T&D) continue to evolve,

almost no human resource development ( HRD ) research has investigated

personality traits in today ’ s T&D occupations, despite evidence linking

personality with work success. Toward filling this lacuna, we identified four

Big Five personality traits and four narrow traits with content matching

T&D competencies. Based on person–career fit theory, we hypothesized

that the trait profile would differentiate T&D from other occupations, and

the traits would correlate with T&D career satisfaction. From 90,000+

individuals receiving private career transition services, we compared

trait scores of 284 individuals in T&D occupations and the others via

bootstrapping (5,000 random samples, n = 284, with the same age and

gender distributions). The T&D personality profile was significantly

elevated, with greatest differences on the narrow trait empathy, closely

followed by assertiveness and customer service orientation plus

optimism (small difference), and significant differences on Big Five traits

extraversion, openness, and agreeableness (small difference), but no

difference on emotional stability. T&D career satisfaction correlated

significantly with five traits in the profile, most strongly with emotional

stability and optimism. Also, emotional stability correlated more highly with

career satisfaction for T&D than non-T&D occupations. The distinctive

T&D personality profile raises questions for further HRD research and

carries practical value for training and development of T&D personnel.

Keywords: personality profi le , career satisfaction , competency , training and

development , Big Five

14 Sundstrom, Lounsbury, Gibson, Huang

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

Personality occupies a prominent role in training and development (T&D;

Kraiger & Culbertson, 2013 ; Rowold, 2007 ). Empirical studies found personal-

ity traits related to job performance (Barrick & Mount, 2005 ), job satisfaction

(Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002 ), career satisfaction (Lounsbury etal., 2003 ),

and success (Judge & Hurst, 2008 ). T&D research examined personality traits of

trainees in relation to transfer of training (Blume, Ford, Baldwin & Huang, 2010;

Huang, Blume, Ford, & Baldwin, 2015). Studies of training effectiveness found

trainer attributes to be significant moderator variables (Arthur, Bennett, Edens,

& Bell, 2003 ). Yet little published, research has examined personality traits in

T&D occupations (Brown & Sitzmann, 2011 ; Salas, Tannenbaum, Kraiger, &

Smith-Jentsch, 2012 ). We found one study of trainers’ traits (Towler & Dipboye,

2001 ), but no others on the personality traits of individuals with careers in T&D.

Toward filling the knowledge gap, we sought here to identify a distinctive

profile of personality traits that differentiate T&D from other occupations—

reflecting personality convergence in occupations predicted by two person–

career fit theories. After introducing them, we review evolving T&D

competencies, identify traits with matching content, and derive hypotheses

about a T&D personality profile and career satisfaction.

Person–Career Fit Theories and Occupational

Differences in Personality

Holland ’ s Vocational Theory

Holland ( 1997 ) theorized that work performance, career satisfaction, and

career stability all reflect the fit of an individual ’ s personality and work envi-

ronment. Supportive, empirical studies found personality differences among

vocations (Holland, 1996 ). Similarly, Satterwhite, Fleenor, Braddy, Feldman,

and Hoopes ( 2009 ) hypothesized and found significant personality conver-

gence in occupations, consistent with a finding of personality differences

across 14 occupations (Lounsbury etal., 2003 ).

ASA (Attraction, Selection, Attrition) Framework

Schneider ( 1987 ) proposed a three-phase process in which person–job fit

increases via interaction of individuals and organizations. Attraction occurs as

individuals find jobs they see as suited to their attributes, including personality

traits, and organizations recruit people whose attributes fit the jobs. Selection

occurs as job offers are made and accepted, the decisions hinging on expected

person–job fit. Actual fit, and associated satisfaction and performance, influence

the timing of the third phase, attrition : sooner with poor fit, or later via voluntary

or involuntary termination. Research supported the ASA framework (Schneider,

Goldstein, & Smith, 1995 ). One study found the expected intraorganization,

homogeneity of personality (Schneider, Smith, Taylor, & Fleenor, 1998 ).

A few empirical studies found distinctive, occupation-specific personality

profiles, adding to scientific knowledge and offering a practical resource for