Core self-evaluations

Overview

Core self-evaluations represent a stable personality trait which encompasses an individual’s subconscious, fundamental evaluations about themselves, their own abilities and their own control. The concept of core self-evaluations was first examined by Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997), and is comprised of four personality dimensions; locus of control, neuroticism, self-efficacy, and self-esteem. The trait developed as a dispositional predictor of job satisfaction, but has expanded to predict a variety of other outcomes. Core self-evaluations are particularly important because they represent a personality trait, which will remain consistent over time. Furthermore, the way in which people appraise themselves using core self-evaluations has the ability to predict positive work outcomes, specifically, job satisfaction and performance. These important relationships have inspired increasing amounts of research on core self-evaluations and suggest important implications about the importance this trait may have for organizations.

Definitions

Locus of control

The locus of control construct indicates a tendency for individuals to attribute life’s events to their own doing or to outside forces beyond their control. There are two basic classifications of locus of control: internals and externals. Internals believe they control their own environment whereas externals believe outside forces control their lives (Spector, 1982). Those with an internal locus of control are more likely to be satisfied with their job and life because they believe in their own control over the situation (Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger 1998b).

Neuroticism

Neuroticism, also a Big Five personality trait, is defined as an enduring tendency to experience unpleasant emotions (e.g., anger, anxiety, depression) easily. Those high in neuroticism react more negatively to stress, are prone to anxiety, and susceptible to feelings of helplessness (Costa & McCrae, 1988). Neuroticism, when examined as part of core self-evaluations, is conceptualized as it’s opposite, emotional stability (i.e., non-neuroticism; Judge et al., 1998b). In fact, because neuroticism and emotional stability are simply labels for two sides of the same trait, they are often used interchangeably in literature (Mount & Barrick, 1995).

Self-efficacy

Self-efficacy is defined as an individual’s estimate of his or her own ability to perform well and handle a variety of situations (Judge et al., 1997). Individuals high in self-efficacy are more likely to take on new tasks that allow for growth ===Self- esteem=== Self-esteem reflects a person’s overall appraisal of his or her own worth (Harter, 1990). Self-esteem may, in fact, be one of the most essential core self-evaluation domains because it is the overall value one feels about oneself as a person (Judge et al., 1998b).

Development of the Construct

The core self-evaluations trait was developed through the study of job satisfaction. Historically, three models have been used to study job satisfaction.

The situational/job characteristics approach, which attributes job satisfaction to external factors such as the characteristics of the job itself,
The dispositional approach, which attributes job satisfaction to internal, stable personality traits and,
The interactionist approach, which attributes job satisfaction to an interaction between situational and dispositional factors.

The situational and interactionist approaches have received majority of the support in previously literature. Acknowledging this disparity, core self-evaluations were developed in an effort to increase exploration of the dispositional approach to job satisfaction (Judge et al., 1997).

Core Self-Evaluation Traits

While investigating the dispositional model, Judge et al. (1997) reasoned that the traits most likely to predict job satisfaction would maintain three important characteristics: evaluation-focused, fundamental, and large in scope.

Evaluation-focused: An evaluative trait is one that involves a fundamental value judgment about oneself, rather than a simple description (“I am confident and worthy,” vs. “I am ambitious”). Job satisfaction is itself an evaluation that people make about their jobs; therefore, an individuals’ evaluations, especially those regarding how they think of and value themselves, should have a large effect on their job satisfaction (Judge et al., 1997).
Fundamental: A fundamental trait, also called a source trait, is one that is basic and underlying. Fundamental traits together cause broader “surface” traits (Cattell, 1965), and affect all other more specific evaluations. For example, self-doubt and frustration are considered to be source traits that commonly predict the surface trait of aggression. Fundamental traits will have a stronger and more consistent effect on job satisfaction than surface traits (Judge et al., 1997).
Large in scope: A trait which is large in scope, or global, will more likely generalize to the workplace than a specific trait will. For example, a global evaluation of one’s worth will better predict overall job satisfaction than a specific evaluation of one’s artistic ability.

Using the above characteristics, four well studied personality traits; locus of control, neuroticism, self-efficacy, and self-esteem, were chosen as possible dispositional predictors of job satisfaction. Each trait had previously presented as a relatively powerful predictor of various job outcomes; however, until this time, these traits’ predictive powers had only been studied in isolation. When studied together, Judge et al. (1997) discovered that these four traits would form a broader personality trait called core self-evaluations, which could predict job satisfaction better than each individual trait could when examined alone. In other words, relative levels of each of these four traits in an individual can be explained by one broad underlying trait; core self-evaluations. Furthermore, combining these traits allowed for better prediction of job satisfaction, and later, a variety of other outcomes (Bono & Judge, 2003).

Relationship between Core Self-Evaluation Traits

Locus of control, neuroticism, self-efficacy, and self-esteem have many conceptual similarities, but beyond stating that the similarities exist, these traits were rarely studied together until their integration into the common underlying trait of core self-evaluations. Many researchers of personality psychology argue that specific traits have been proposed and studied without considering that these traits have a broad, common core. Many such traits correlate so highly that they should be considered measures of the same construct (Watson & Clark, 1984), which is the case with the four traits of core self-evaluations. These traits are very closely related, and each one only predicts a small portion of job satisfaction by itself. However, when combined into one core trait (i.e. core-self evaluations), their predictive power increases (Bono & Judge, 2003).

Comparisons with the Five-Factor Model and Positive/Negative Affectivity

Core self-evaluations trait is perhaps the best dispositional predictor of job satisfaction, demonstrating stronger predictive power than the Big Five personality traits or Positive/Negative Affectivity (Judge et al., 2008).

Five Factor Model (“Big Five personality traits”)

There is skepticism that core self-evaluations contribute any predictive value above what the Big Five personality traits – agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, openness) – are able to predict. Some argue that trait indicators of core self-evaluations are the same as various conceptualizations of the neuroticism component of the Big Five (Judge & Bono, 2001b). Although it is true that some definitions of neuroticism include all four CSE traits, the Big Five does not refer explicitly to self-esteem in the description of neuroticism, nor is self-esteem one of the facets of neuroticism in their model (Bono & Judge, 2003). Therefore, the conceptualization of neuroticism in the Big Five is more narrow than in core self-evaluations. Additionally, no existing neuroticism scales measure self-esteem. Furthermore, measures of neuroticism include only descriptive questions and do not contain an evaluative component (Judge & Bono, 2001b). (SENTENCE ON INCREMENTAL VALIDITY)

Positive/Negative Affectivity (PA/NA)

Affective disposition, the tendency to primarily experience either positive or negative emotional states, has frequently been studied as a correlate of job satisfaction. Although affective disposition does influence job satisfaction, a measure of positive or negative affectivity does not explain unique variance in job satisfaction beyond that explained by the individual core self-evaluations of self-esteem and neuroticism (Heller, Judge, & Watson, 2002; Judge et al., 1998b). In fact, measures of core self-evaluations explain significant variance in job and life satisfaction not explained by the PA-NA scales (Judge et al, 1998).

Scales of Measurement

Previously, attempts to measure this trait were indirect, requiring the CSE trait to be extracted from the four scales that measured each individual trait. However a direct core self-evaluation scale, the CSES, has recently been developed and proven both reliable and valid (Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoreson, 2003). Some researchers still favor using the individual trait scales to measure core self-evaluations, but the use of the direct measure is growing more popular in recent literature.

Important Outcomes

Job Satisfaction

One of the more consistent and significant relationships that has been examined in the literature is the relationship between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction (Bono & Judge, 2003; Dormann, Fay, Zapf, and Frese, 2006; Judge et al., 1997; Judge et al., 1998b; Judge & Bono, 2001). In fact, when Judge et al. (1997) developed the construct of core self-evaluations, they did so in an effort to identify a valid dispositional predictor of job satisfaction. Since the creation of this construct in the Judge et al. (1997) study, research has continued to support the relationship between CSE and job satisfaction, which suggests that people who appraise themselves positively (i.e., rate themselves highly on core self-evaluations) are more likely to be satisfied with their jobs. Additional research has also confirmed that CSE can predict job satisfaction over time (Dormann et al., 2005; Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000). People who have positive core-self evaluations are likely to be satisfied with their jobs throughout the duration of their lives spent in the work environment. Job satisfaction is an outcome of core self-evaluations that has become well-established throughout psychological literature. However, Judge et al., (1997) suggest that researchers investigate other variables that may influence this relationship. In response, subsequent literature began to examine the influence of a variety of other constructs on the relationship between CSE and job satisfaction.

The role of perceived job characteristics

Job characteristics are attributes of the job that people traditionally find important, including the extent to which they identify with the tasks they are doing (identity), the extent to which they are assigned diverse tasks (variety), extent to which they feel their work affects others (significance), extent to which they receive productive feedback from their job (feedback), and the extent to which they feel they are allowed to make their own decisions at their job (autonomy; Hackman & Oldahm, 1980). These characteristics play an important role in influencing the relationship between an individual’s core self-evaluations and their satisfaction with their job. Studies have found that perceived job characteristics partially mediate the relationship between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction (Judge et al., 1998b; Judge, et al., 2000; & Stumpp, Hülsheger, Muck, & Maier, 2009). In other words, a person who appraises themselves positively (i.e., has high core self-evaluations) and has acquired a job which encompasses the aforementioned characteristics of identity, variety, significance, feedback, and autonomy, will be more likely to be satisfied with the job. More specifically, the extent to which individuals feel their work is significant may have the strongest bearing on how well their core self-evaluations will predict their job satisfaction (Stummp et al., 2009).

The role of job complexity

The job characteristics studies primarily focused on perceived job characteristics, which are measured subjectively. Nevertheless, it has also been shown that objective measures of job characteristics, such as how challenging a job is (i.e. job complexity) can also influence the relationship between CSE and job satisfaction. Specifically, job complexity partially mediates the relationship between CSE and job satisfaction, such that a high CSE individual with a complex job will be more likely to be satisfied with their job (Judge et al., 1998; Srivasta, Locke, & Judge, 2010).

The role of goal congruence

Goal congruence also plays a partially mediating role in influencing the relationship between one’s core self-evaluations and the satisfaction one has with one’s job. Goal congruence is the extent to which an individual chooses goals that are consistent with personal values, ideals, and interests (Sheldon and Elliot, 1998). It is important that people appraise themselves positively (i.e., have high core self-evaluations) in order to successfully choose congruent goals which will make them more satisfied with their jobs (Judge et al., 2005).

Job Performance

Job performance is another consistent and important outcome of core-self evaluations (Bono & Judge, 2003; Erez & Judge, 2001; Kacmar, Harris, & Judge, 2009; Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998a). Many theories have developed regarding how CSE is related to job performance; the most popular of these theories argues that people with high core self-evaluations will be more motivated to perform well because they are confident they have the ability to do so (Bono & Judge, 2003). Another theory suggests that the link between CSE and performance can be attributed to supervisors enjoying the positivity of high CSE individuals and, thus, rating them highly on performance measures. Lastly, literature has also argued that high CSE could be an ability factor. High CSE indicates a person who has the ability to cope with organizational change, to work well in groups, to display positive emotions, and who will be reliable, all of which contribute to better performance (Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998).

The role of motivation

Despite the variety of theories, motivation is generally the most accepted mediator of the CSE and job performance relationship (Erez & Judge, 2001; Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998a). Previous literature suggests that those with negative self-appraisals (low CSE) will see a difficult task and determine that it is beyond their capabilities or out of their control, thus unmanageable. This will lead to low motivation and, consequently, poor performance. High CSE individuals, on the other hand, will be highly motivated to complete challenging tasks because they believe they have the ability and control to complete the tasks successfully. Consequently, high CSE individuals with high motivation will be more likely to perform better in their jobs than low CSE individuals.

Other Outcomes

Life satisfaction

A majority of the literature that examines core self-evaluations and job satisfaction also examines how both of these constructs relate to a person’s overall life satisfaction. Consistently, it has been found that people with high core self-evaluations are more likely to be satisfied with their jobs and with their lives in general than those who have low core-self evaluations (Heller, Judge, & Watson, 2002; Judge et al., 1998b; Judge et al., 2005).

Job Stress

Individuals who appraise themselves positively (i.e., have high core self-evaluations) are more likely to cope actively with job stress situations. They are more likely to try to alter the situation than to let the stress affect them. In other words, high core self-evaluations individuals will perceive less job stress than low core self-evaluation individuals (Brunborg, 2008; Judge et al., 2002).

Job Burnout

Job burnout stems from stress at work. A person suffering from burnout is exhausted, cynical, and lacks motivation (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). Similar to job stress, job burnout has also been related to the core self-evaluations construct. Individuals with low core self-evaluations will consistently feel that they are unable to handle work tasks because they lack the ability or control. For this reason, those with low core self-evaluations will be more susceptible to job burnout than those with high core self-evaluations, who appraise themselves positively and have confidence in their ability to manage the situation (Best, Stapleton, & Downey, 2005). This is particularly important because of job burnouts consistent relationship with voluntary turnover behavior (e.g. individuals choosing to leave the job), which is very costly for all organizations (Maslach et al., 2001).

Economic Success

Family socio-economic status and academic achievement are established predictors of economic success later in life. However; recent research has confirmed that high core self-evaluations can moderate or strengthen this relationship. In other words, an individual high in core self-evaluations will be more likely to capitalize on the advantages given to them via their families economic success or through their own academic achievements and will consequently be more likely to be financially successful later on in life (Judge & Hurst, 2007).

New Directions/Development

In the most recent literature, core self-evaluations have been linked to:

Strength training participation: CSE was found to positively influence older adult’s participation in progressive resistance training, which is a type of strength training (Baker et al., 2011). Generalization studies should be conducted to determine if CSE is predictive of participation in other types of training across all populations.
Performance Management Behavior: Along with conscientiousness, high CSE predicted a more positive judgment of team effectiveness and ability (i.e. high collective efficacy), which in turn leads to improved performance management team behavior (e.g. establishing team goals, coordinating tasks, monitoring progress toward goal; Tasa et al., 2011). This suggests that research on CSE expand to include how CSE may influence teams and their performance.
Inter-role conflict and enrichment: Those with higher CSEs tend to perceive and seek out greater levels of support, allowing them to effectively manage multiple life roles (e.g. their role at home, their role at work, etc.; Westring & Ryan, 2010).
Vocational identity: High CSE relates positively to vocational identity (i.e., commitment and exploration into one’s identity as a worker), which is positively related to life satisfaction (Hirschi, 2011). This adds additional insight into the
Career decision-making difficulties: Females raised with an authoritarian parenting style developed negative CSEs, which caused them greater difficulty in making a career decision later in life (Koumoundourou et al., 2010). Future studies should be conducted in order to more broadly determine the effects of parenting style on CSE and, subsequent career decision-making capabilities.
Emotional exhaustion and cynicism: High CSE is associated with lower levels of emotional exhaustion and cynicism, both of which are related to low job satisfaction (Laschinger et al., 2011).
Work-family enrichment: Even when perceived organizational support is low, individuals high in CSEs reported higher work-family enrichment (i.e., events in one role, whether they be work or family related, enhance quality of life in the other) than those low in CSE (McNall et al., 2011).
Work-school conflict and work-school enrichment: Similarly, higher levels of CSE correlate negativity with work-school conflict and positively with work-school enrichment (McNall & Michel, 2010).
Leader-member exchange: High CSE correlates with more positive leader-member exchanges (i.e., interactions between leaders and members; Sears & Hackett, 2011).
Team effectiveness: High CSEs enhance team social networks, which in turn increases team effectiveness (Zhang & Peterson, 2011). Once again, this research suggests the need to expand the exploration of CSE beyond individual performance to the performance of groups and teams.

Practical Implications

Core self-evaluations have primarily been studied with two of the most important work outcomes: job satisfaction and job performance. Due to the consistent relationships between core self-evaluations and these outcomes found in the literature, it is important to examine the implication these findings have on the use of core self-evaluation measures in an applied business setting.

Selection

Due to its direct relationship to job satisfaction and job performance, it seems logical that core self-evaluations should be included in organizational selection methods. In fact, researchers do support this idea. Below are advantages and disadvantages of using core self-evaluations in selection as suggested by Judge, Erez, & Bono (1998). Advantages:

Provided that all facets of core self-evaluations (i.e., locus of control, emotional stability, self-efficacy, and self-esteem) are included, the measure will remain a valid predictor of job satisfaction and performance.
Measures of each core self-evaluation facet are primarily accessible to the public, as opposed to proprietary like the Big Five personality measures.
Research reveals no adverse impact of core self-evaluations against minorities or older employees.

Disadvantages:

Core self-evaluations demonstrate slight to moderate adverse impact against women.
The majority of research suggests that applicants do not believe personality measures are relevant for selection. Thus, applicants may not perceive a fair selection system if a personality measure is included.
Similar to other personality measures, social desirability responses, where participants “fake” or respond with socially desirable answers as opposed to answering honestly, is a disadvantage of using core self-evaluations in selection.

Due to the advantages for employers in employing individuals with high core self-evaluations, more research is necessary to determine the practicality of the core self-evaluation measure as part of a selection method.

Criticisms

As research increases on the construct of core self-evaluations, criticisms of the trait have developed.

Poor theory behind inclusion of the CSE traits
- It has been suggested that other traits like negative affectivity and dispositional optimism should be included in the core self-evaluations trait (Bono & Judge, 2003; Jude et al., 1997). It has also been suggested that locus of control may not be a good dimension to include as part of core self-evaluations (Bono & Judge, 2003). Furthermore, some researchers argue that there is not strong theoretical support for the inclusion of the four dimensions of core self-evaluations and exclusion of other theorized traits (Johnson, Rosen, & Levy, 2008).
CSE traits are interchangeable
- The core self-evaluations traits have shown to correlate very strongly with one another. Specifically, self-esteem and self-efficacy are highly related (Bono & Judge, 2003). It has been argued that these dimensions relate so highly that they could be interchangeable. In other words, including one as opposed to the other in does not contribute significantly to the predictive power of core self-evaluations as a construct (Johnson et al., 2008).
CSE: underlying trait or an aggregate construct?
- Previous studies have theorized that CSE is an underlying trait that explains the relationship between locus of control, neuroticism, self-efficacy, and self-esteem (Judge et al., 1998b). However, it has also been suggested that core self-evaluations can be conceptualized as an “aggregate construct,” which is predicted by its four dimensions. In other words, an individual’s levels on each of these traits will predict their level of core self-evaluations as opposed to the other way around. Additional research should investigate this conceptualization (Johnson et al., 2008).

References

Best, R. G., Stapleton, L. M., & Downey, R. G. (2005). Core Self-Evaluations and Job Burnout: The Test of Alternative Models. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(4), 441-451. Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Core self-evaluations: A review of the trait and its role in job satisfaction and job performance. European Journal of Personality, 17(Suppl1), S5-S18. doi:10.1002/per.48 Brunborg, G. (2008). Core self-evaluations: A predictor variable for job stress. European Psychologist, 13(2), 96-102. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 853-863 Dormann, C., Fay, D., Zapf, D., & Frese, M. (2006). A State-Trait Analysis of Job Satisfaction: On the Effect of Core Self-Evaluations. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55(1), 27-51. Erez, A., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1270-1279. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Journal Citation Database: PsycINFO References Harter, S. (1990). Causes, correlates, and the functional role of global self-worth: A life-span perspective. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Kolligan, Jr. (Eds.), Competence considered (pp. 67-97). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Heller, D., Judge, T. A., & Watson, D. (2002). The confounding role of personality and trait affectivity in the relationship between job and life satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(7), 815-835. Hirschi, A. (2011). Vocational Identity as a Mediator of the Relationship between Core Self-Evaluations and Life and Job Satisfaction. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60 (4), 622–644. Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Levy, P. E. (2008). Getting to the core of self-evaluation: A review and recommendations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(3), 391-413. Joo, B., Jeung, C., & Yoon, H. (2010). Investigating the influences of core self-evaluations, job autonomy, and intrinsic motivation on in-role job performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21(4), 353-371. 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(1), 80-92. Judge, T. A., & Hurst, C. (2007). Capitalizing on one's advantages: Role of core self-evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1212-1227. 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(2), 237-249. 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(2), 257-268. Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Bono, J. E. (1998a). The power of being positive: The relation between positive self-concept and job performance. Human Performance, 11(2-3), 167-187.

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? B.W. Roberts, & R. Hogan (Eds.), Personality psychology in the workplace (pp. 93–118). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 693-710. Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The Core Self-Evaluations Scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 303-331. 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, 151–188.

Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998b). Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1), 17-34.

Kacmar, K. M.; Harris, K. J.; Collins, B. J. & Judge, T. A. (2009). Core self-evaluations and job performance: the role of the perceived work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 (6), 1572-1580. Koumoundourou, G., Tsaousis, I., & Kounenou, K. (2011). Parental influences on Greek adolescents’ career decision-making difficulties: The mediating role of core self-evaluations. Journal of Career Assessment, 19(2), 165-182. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397–422. Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995). The Big Five personality dimensions: Implications for research and practice in human resources management. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 13, 153-200. Spector, P. E. (1982). Behavior in organizations as a functiong of employees’ locus of control. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 482-497. Srivastava, A., Locke, E. A., Judge, T. A., & Adams, J. W. (2010). Core self-evaluations as causes of satisfaction: The mediating role of seeking task complexity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.04.008 Stumpp, T., Hülsheger, U. R., Muck, P. M., & Maier, G. W. (2009). Expanding the link between core self-evaluations and affective job attitudes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18(2), 148-166. Zhang, Z., & Peterson, S. J. (2011). Advice networks in teams: The role of transformational leadership and members' core self-evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 1004-1017.

External links

example.com