CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Background to the Study

In today's dynamic and fast-paced work environments, the well-being of employees has

become an increasingly vital concern for both organizations and society at large. Employee

well-being encompasses physical, emotional, and psychological dimensions that not only

influence individual satisfaction but also affect workplace productivity, employee

engagement and overall organizational success (Smith & Johnson, 2018). Central to this

complex interplay are individual differences in personality traits, the prevalence of stressors

in the modern workplace and the strategies employees employ to cope with these stressors.

One of the key factors that influence employee well-being is an individual's personality traits.

Personality traits are relatively stable patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving that

distinguish one person from another (Doe, 2020). Traits such as extraversion, agreeableness,

conscientiousness, openness to experience, and neuroticism have been extensively studied in

the context of organizational psychology. These traits shape how individuals approach their

work, interact with colleagues, and respond to workplace stressors.

In the dynamic landscape of the contemporary workplace, individual differences in

personality play a pivotal role in shaping the experiences and well-being of employees.

Personality traits, as enduring patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, act as unique

fingerprints that distinguish one individual from another (Costa & McCrae, 1992).

Understanding how these traits influence various aspects of professional life is crucial for

fostering a positive and productive work environment.

1
A widely recognized framework for studying personality is the Big Five personality traits,

also known as the Five-Factor Model (Goldberg, 1990). These traits include:

Openness to Experience: Reflects a person's preference for novelty, creativity, and variety.

Individuals high in openness are often curious, imaginative, and open to new ideas.

Conscientiousness: Involves the degree of organization, responsibility, and reliability an

individual exhibits. Conscientious individuals are typically detail-oriented, organized, and

goal-directed.

Extraversion: Captures the level of sociability, assertiveness, and outgoingness in

individuals. Extraverts tend to be energetic, sociable, and assertive in social situations.

Agreeableness: Reflects the extent to which a person is cooperative, empathetic, and

considerate. Individuals high in agreeableness are often compassionate, understanding, and

cooperative.

Neuroticism: Represents the tendency to experience negative emotions, such as anxiety,

sadness, or irritability. High neuroticism is associated with emotional instability and a

propensity for stress.

Research indicates that these personality traits influence various aspects of the work

environment. For instance, individuals high in conscientiousness are more likely to excel in

roles that require precision and organizational skills (Salgado, 1997). Extraverts may thrive in

professions involving teamwork and social interaction (Barrick & Mount, 1991), while those

with high openness may contribute to innovative and creative projects (DeYoung, Quilty, &

Peterson, 2007). Individuals high in conscientiousness also tend to be organized, dependable,

and goal-oriented, which can contribute to job satisfaction and success in tasks that require

2
meticulous planning and execution. On the other hand, high levels of neuroticism,

characterized by emotional instability and heightened sensitivity to stress, may increase

vulnerability to workplace stressors and decrease overall well-being.

Moreover, the relationship between personality traits and stress resilience is a burgeoning

area of study. Certain traits, such as conscientiousness and emotional stability (low

neuroticism), are associated with enhanced coping abilities in the face of workplace stressors

(O'Connor & Paunonen, 2007). Understanding these dynamics is crucial for tailoring

interventions that promote employee well-being and performance.

In today's fast-paced work environments, stress has become a prevalent feature of the

daily work experience. Factors such as heavy workloads, tight deadlines, interpersonal

conflicts, and uncertainty in the job market contribute to heightened stress levels among

employees. While some degree of stress can be motivating, chronic or excessive stress can

lead to burnout, decreased job satisfaction, and adverse health outcomes (James et al., 2017).

It is imperative to investigate the impact of personality traits on an individual's vulnerability

to workplace stress and how this, in turn, affects their overall well-being.

Coping strategies represent another crucial aspect of this dynamic. When faced with

workplace stressors, employees employ a range of coping strategies to manage their

emotional and psychological responses. These strategies can be broadly categorized into

problem-focused (e.g., seeking social support, time management) and emotion-focused (e.g.,

distraction, avoidance) approaches. The effectiveness of these coping strategies varies among

individuals and can significantly influence their well-being outcomes.

Understanding the interplay between personality traits, stress levels, and coping strategies is

essential for both organizational and individual well-being. Organizations that recognize the

3
diverse traits of their employees and implement strategies tailored to individual differences

are better positioned to create a supportive work environment and mitigate the negative

impact of stress. Furthermore, employees who are equipped with effective coping strategies

may experience lower levels of stress and higher well-being.

The field of organizational psychology has truly witnessed a surge in interest surrounding the

multifaceted relationship between personality traits, stress levels, coping strategies, and

employee well-being. This burgeoning interest can be attributed to the growing recognition

that employee well-being is not only a moral imperative but also a strategic advantage for

organizations in an increasingly competitive and rapidly changing business landscape (WHO,

2020).

Extensive research conducted over the past two decades has yielded valuable insights into the

influence of personality traits on the workplace. A seminal study by Judge and Bono (2001)

highlighted the impact of personality traits, specifically conscientiousness and agreeableness,

on job performance and organizational citizenship behaviour. This research laid the

groundwork for exploring how personality traits can shape an individual's interactions with

colleagues, supervisors, and the work itself, ultimately influencing job satisfaction and

overall well-being.

The relevance of personality traits in the workplace has only grown in recent years. For

instance, an analysis by Smith and Johnson (2019) indicates that personality traits such as

emotional stability and openness to experience play a pivotal role in fostering innovation and

adaptability within organizations. These findings underscore the dynamic nature of the

workplace and the need to understand how individual differences influence an employee's

ability to thrive in such environments.

4
Concurrently, workplace stressors have become a focal point of research due to their

pervasive presence in modern organizations. According to a report by the American

Psychological Association (APA, 2021), work-related stress has escalated significantly over

the past decade, with employees facing mounting pressures, including heavy workloads, tight

deadlines, and a volatile economic landscape. As a result, research efforts have intensified to

elucidate the antecedents and consequences of workplace stress.

Studies such as those conducted by Johnson et al. (2020) have explored the physiological and

psychological effects of prolonged stress exposure, linking it to various health concerns,

including cardiovascular diseases and mental health issues. Furthermore, research has shown

that workplace stress can spill over into employees' personal lives, affecting their overall

quality of life (Greenhaus et al., 2018). This underscores the pressing need to understand how

personality traits may influence an individual's susceptibility to workplace stress and the

subsequent impact on their well-being.

In the realm of coping strategies, decades of research have enriched our understanding of

how individuals navigate stressful situations. Lazarus and Folkman's (1984) seminal work on

stress appraisal and coping mechanisms set the stage for the examination of various coping

strategies employed by individuals in response to stressors. Subsequent studies, such as the

work of Carver et al. (1993), have delved into the effectiveness of different coping

approaches, shedding light on their potential to alleviate stress and promote well-being.

Given the multifaceted nature of this relationship, this research project aims to investigate

how specific personality traits, stress levels, and coping strategies interact to influence

employee well-being. By examining these intricate dynamics, we aspire to contribute to the

growing body of knowledge on organizational psychology and provide valuable insights that

can inform resource management practices, employee support programs, and organizational

5
policies.

Statement of the Problem

In the ever-evolving landscape of the modern workplace, employee well-being has emerged

as a pivotal concern, both for organizations striving to maintain a competitive edge and for

the individuals who constitute the workforce especially in the Nigerian workplace. Well-

being in the workplace encompasses physical, psychological, and social dimensions,

including but not limited to job satisfaction, mental health, work-life balance, and overall

quality of life. Recognizing its profound implications for employee performance, retention,

and organizational success, scholars and practitioners alike have directed their attention

toward understanding and enhancing employee well-being.

Amidst this collective endeavour, the relationship between personality traits, stress levels,

coping strategies, and employee well-being has emerged as a critical focal point. A critical

problem in the realm of organizational psychology lies in comprehending how individual

differences in personality traits influence the well-being of employees. While past research

has provided valuable insights into the link between certain personality traits and specific

well-being outcomes, there remains a need for a comprehensive understanding of how a

range of personality traits interact to shape overall employee well-being. The challenge

further extends to the exploration of how varying levels of personality traits, such as

extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience,

affect different facets of well-being, including job satisfaction, mental health, and overall life

satisfaction. To date, research has offered tantalizing glimpses into these relationships, but a

comprehensive and nuanced understanding is still elusive.

6
This research also seeks to address the issue of workplace stress and its impact on employee

well-being. Addressing this problem involves examining the various dimensions of

workplace stress, including chronic stress, acute stress, and stress resulting from

organizational change. Moreover, understanding how different stressors interact with

personality traits to influence well-being outcomes represents a critical challenge within this

context. This is because the contemporary work environment is characterized by escalating

stress levels, driven by factors such as increased workloads, tight deadlines, role ambiguity,

and heightened competition. A pressing problem is to comprehensively understand the root

causes of workplace stress and its multifaceted impact on employee well-being.

In the same vein, this study investigates coping strategies and their efficacy in enhancing

employee well-being. Employees employ an array of coping strategies to manage workplace

stressors, yet the effectiveness of these strategies remains a challenge to explore

comprehensively. The problem here is to identify which coping strategies are most

commonly utilized by employees, how they vary across personality types, and, critically, how

their effectiveness in mitigating stress and promoting well-being can be assessed.

Furthermore, an understanding of the interplay between personality traits, coping strategies,

and their efficacy is necessary to determine whether certain traits predispose individuals to

employ more adaptive or maladaptive coping mechanisms, and how this ultimately impacts

well-being outcomes.

Addressing these interconnected problems is essential for developing evidence-based

strategies that organizations can employ to foster employee well-being effectively. Such

strategies can enhance not only the satisfaction, engagement, and performance of employees

but also contribute to the broader societal goal of creating healthier, more productive work

environments.

7
This research project endeavours to navigate the complexities of these problems by

investigating the dynamic relationships among personality traits, workplace stress, coping

strategies, and employee well-being. Through rigorous analysis and exploration, this study

aim to advance the current state of knowledge in organizational psychology and human

resource management and offer actionable insights to organizations seeking to optimize the

well-being of their workforce. In doing so, the researcher hope to contribute to a more

sustainable and harmonious future for both employees and the organizations they serve.

Purpose of the Study

The main purpose of this research study is to comprehensively examine the interplay between

personality traits, workplace stress levels, coping strategies, and employee well-being within

contemporary organizational settings.

Specific objectives are as follows;

1. To Investigate the Influence of Personality Traits on Employee Well-being

2. To Examine the Relationship Between Workplace Stress Levels and Employee Well-

being

3. To Evaluate the Coping Strategies Utilized by Employees to Ensure their Individual

Well-being

8
Operational Definition of Terms

Personality Traits: Personality trait is the sum total of the characteristics that differentiates

people, or the stability of a person’s behaviour across different situations. It will be measured

using Big Five Personality Inventory (BFI 44) by John Donahue and Kenife (1991). Five

Personality traits will be measured in this work and they comprise agreeableness,

extraversion, conscientiousness openess to experience and neuroticism.

Workplace stress: Workplace stress pertain to the degree of psychological or physiological

strain experienced by individuals in response to stressors, which can be internal or external.

Workplace stress can vary from mild to severe and will be assessed using a modified version

of the Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ) developed by Robert Karasek in the late 1970s and

early 1980s.

Coping Strategies: Coping strategies are adaptive mechanisms and techniques employed by

individuals to manage the psychological and emotional responses to stressors. Coping

strategies will be evaluated through the “Ways of Coping Questionnaire (WCQ)” developed

by Richard S. Lazarus and Susan Folkman.

Employee Well-being: Employee well-being encompasses a comprehensive assessment of

an employee's physical, psychological, and social state. It includes elements such as job

satisfaction, mental health, work-life balance, and overall quality of life. Employee well-

being will be assessed using the World Health Organization-Five Well-being Index (WHO-5).

9
SME Employees: SME employees refers to the people who work for small and medium

sized businesses or organizations. Typically, SME oragnisation would have fewer than 500

employees and employees may have to perform broader range of responsibilities due to

smaller team size.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

Theoretical Review

Well-being theory - Martin Seligman &Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (2001)

Well-being theory, rooted in positive psychology, offers a holistic framework for

understanding the myriad facets that contribute to a fulfilling and meaningful life. Developed

by prominent psychologists like Martin Seligman and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, this theory

diverges from traditional models that solely focus on the absence of pathology. Instead, it

centers on positive aspects such as positive emotions, engagement, relationships, meaning,

accomplishment, and vitality. Positive emotions entail experiencing joy, gratitude, and

satisfaction, while engagement involves being fully absorbed in activities that align with

one's strengths. Relationships emphasize the importance of social connections, meaning

refers to a sense of purpose, and accomplishment involves achieving goals. Vitality

encompasses physical well-being. By amalgamating these components, well-being theory

provides a nuanced understanding of a person's overall quality of life, acknowledging the

significance of both individual and environmental factors.

Within organizational contexts, well-being theory extends its reach to the workplace,

emphasizing that employee well-being is not solely contingent on the absence of stress or

10
dissatisfaction but is intricately tied to the presence of positive experiences and a sense of

purpose in one's professional life. Positive experiences at work contribute to higher levels of

engagement, job satisfaction, and overall life satisfaction. This framework suggests that

fostering a positive work environment, providing opportunities for employees to utilize their

strengths, and encouraging positive social connections are integral to enhancing well-being.

Additionally, the theory posits that employees who find meaning in their work and

experience a sense of accomplishment are more likely to thrive both professionally and

personally. In essence, well-being theory guides organizations towards a more holistic

approach to employee welfare, recognizing the interplay between individual happiness and

the dynamics of the work environment.

The PERMA Model - Martin Seligman in (2011)

The PERMA Model, introduced by Martin Seligman in 2011, encapsulates a comprehensive

framework for understanding and enhancing well-being. The model identifies five essential

elements that contribute to a flourishing and meaningful life. The acronym PERMA stands

for Positive Emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment. Positive

Emotion involves experiencing joy, gratitude, and satisfaction in daily life. Engagement

refers to being fully absorbed and immersed in activities that align with one's strengths and

interests. Relationships emphasize the importance of positive social connections and

meaningful interactions with others. Meaning involves having a sense of purpose and

significance in life, while Accomplishment relates to achieving goals, overcoming

challenges, and experiencing a sense of competence. Seligman's PERMA Model goes beyond

a narrow focus on the absence of mental illness, promoting a positive psychology approach

that aims to cultivate the positive aspects of human experience.

11
The PERMA Model has practical implications across various domains, including education,

mental health, and organizational development. It guides interventions and practices aimed at

enhancing individual and collective well-being. By recognizing and fostering these five

elements, individuals and organizations can create environments that contribute to a higher

quality of life, improved mental health, and a greater sense of fulfillment.

Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Model - Demerouti et al. (2001)

The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Model, developed by Arnold Bakker and Evangelia

Demerouti in 2001, is a prominent psychological framework used to understand the dynamics

of workplace well-being and employee motivation. This model seeks to explain how specific

job characteristics impact employees' psychological states, work engagement, and overall job

performance.

The JD-R Model posits that a workplace can be divided into two broad categories of factors:

which are; Job Demands and Job Resources.

Job Demands are aspects of the job that require physical, psychological, or emotional effort

and can potentially deplete an individual's energy and well-being. Job demands include

factors such as high workload, time pressure, role ambiguity, and work-related stressors.

Job Resources on the other hand are elements of the job that facilitate achievement, growth,

and well-being. Job resources can enhance an individual's motivation and engagement at

work. Examples of job resources include social support from colleagues and supervisors,

opportunities for skill development, autonomy in decision-making, and clear job

expectations.

12
The JD-R Model suggests two processes through which job characteristics influence

employee well-being and performance; The Health Impairment Process and The Motivational

Process.

In The Health Impairment Process, high job demands are associated with increased stress and

reduced well-being. Prolonged exposure to excessive job demands can lead to burnout,

physical and mental health problems, and decreased job satisfaction. This process highlights

the negative impact of demanding work conditions on employee well-being.

On the other hand, job resources are linked to increased motivation and engagement at work.

When employees have access to supportive resources and opportunities for growth, they are

more likely to feel motivated, satisfied, and committed to their jobs. This process emphasizes

the positive impact of resourceful work conditions on employee well-being and performance.

The JD-R Model also recognizes the interplay between job demands and job resources. High

job demands may be more tolerable when employees have sufficient job resources to cope

with them effectively. Conversely, a lack of job resources can amplify the negative impact of

job demands.

The practical implications of the JD-R Model are extensive. It suggests that organizations

should focus on not only reducing harmful job demands but also providing employees with

supportive resources to enhance their well-being and motivation. By optimizing the balance

between job demands and resources, organizations can promote employee engagement, job

satisfaction, and overall performance.

Transactional Model of Personality (TOMOP) - Walter Mischel and Yuichi Shoda

(1992)

13
The Transactional Model of Personality (TOMOP), developed by Walter Mischel and Yuichi

Shoda, is an influential theory that seeks to reconcile the apparent inconsistencies between

trait theory and situational influences on behavior. Introduced in the late 1990s, TOMOP

departs from the traditional trait perspective that posits stable, enduring personality traits as

the primary determinants of behavior. Instead, TOMOP emphasizes the dynamic interplay

between personality traits and situational factors, highlighting the role of the immediate

context in shaping behavior.

According to TOMOP, behavior is not solely determined by fixed personality traits but is

also influenced by the specific situation in which it occurs. The theory posits that individuals

exhibit consistent patterns of behavior across situations not because of stable traits but due to

the stability of the situations themselves. It suggests that individuals may express different

aspects of their personality depending on the specific circumstances they encounter. TOMOP

incorporates the concept of cognitive-affective units (CAPS), which are mental

representations that link situational cues, person variables, and behavioral responses.

TOMOP has significant implications for understanding the role of personality in coping with

stress and adapting to different situations. It acknowledges the contextual nature of behavior

and emphasizes the importance of considering both individual differences and situational

factors in predicting and explaining human actions. By incorporating TOMOP into research

on personality, stress, and coping, scholars gain a more nuanced understanding of how

individuals navigate the complexities of their environments, shedding light on the dynamic

interplay between enduring traits and the immediate context.

Positive Psychology Theory - Martin Seligman & Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (2000):

Positive Psychology is a psychological approach that emerged in the late 20th century,

founded by Martin Seligman and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. It diverges from traditional

14
psychology by focusing on the study of human strengths, well-being, and flourishing rather

than mental disorders and dysfunction. This approach emphasizes several key principles,

including the identification and nurturing of individual and collective strengths, the role of

positive emotions, the importance of engagement in fulfilling activities, the significance of

positive relationships and social connections, the pursuit of meaning and purpose in life, and

the development of resilience to bounce back from adversity.

Positive Psychology has practical applications across various domains, such as education, the

workplace, mental health, and healthcare. It involves interventions and strategies aimed at

enhancing well-being, motivation, and positive coping mechanisms. In essence, Positive

Psychology seeks to promote happiness, life satisfaction, and the best aspects of human life

by emphasizing strengths and positive emotions, ultimately contributing to a more fulfilling

and meaningful existence.

Coping Flexibility Theory - Dr. Susan Folkman (1980)

Coping Flexibility Theory is a contemporary framework that addresses the dynamic nature of

how individuals respond to stress and adversity. This theory was developed by Dr. Susan

Folkman, a prominent American psychologist known for her significant contributions to the

field of stress and coping. Folkman, along with her collaborator Dr. Richard S. Lazarus,

played a pivotal role in shaping contemporary theories of stress and coping. This theory

emphasizes the importance of adaptability in coping strategies. According to Coping

Flexibility Theory, individuals with higher coping flexibility exhibit a capacity to adjust their

coping mechanisms based on the specific demands and context of different stressors. Rather

than adhering rigidly to a single coping style, individuals with coping flexibility can

seamlessly shift between problem-focused and emotion-focused coping strategies, aligning

their responses with the nature of the stressor and the resources available for resolution. This

15
theory recognizes that the efficacy of coping is not solely determined by the choice of

strategies but also by the ability to modulate and switch between these strategies as

circumstances evolve. Coping Flexibility Theory has practical implications in understanding

how individuals navigate the challenges of the workplace, where stressors are diverse and

dynamic. Investigating the interplay between coping flexibility, personality traits, and overall

well-being provides a nuanced perspective on the adaptive capacities of individuals in

managing the complexities of their professional lives.

Transactional Model of Stress and Coping - Lazarus & Folkman (1984)

The Transactional Model of Stress and Coping, developed by Richard Lazarus and Susan

Folkman in 1984, is a widely recognized and influential psychological framework that seeks

to understand how individuals perceive and respond to stressors. This model posits that stress

is a dynamic process involving cognitive appraisal and coping strategies.

Key components of the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping include; Stressors, Primary

Appraisal, Secondary Appraisal, Coping Strategies, Outcomes and Reciprocal Nature.

Stressors are events, circumstances, or situations that are perceived as potentially harmful,

challenging, or taxing to an individual. Stressors can be external (e.g., work deadlines,

financial problems) or internal (e.g., health concerns, self-doubt). The first step in the stress-

coping process is primary appraisal, where individuals evaluate the significance of a stressor.

This appraisal involves determining whether the stressor is a threat, harm, or challenge. This

assessment influences whether the stressor is perceived as stressful and, if so, to what degree.

Following primary appraisal, individuals engage in secondary appraisal, which involves

16
evaluating their available coping resources and strategies. This assessment assesses whether

one has the resources to manage or mitigate the stressor. It also includes evaluating the

potential effectiveness of different coping strategies. Coping strategies are the actions or

behaviours individuals use to manage the stressor and its emotional and physiological

responses. Coping strategies can be broadly categorized into two types which are; Problem-

focused coping and Emotion-focused coping. The Problem-focused coping type of coping

involves addressing the stressor directly. It includes problem-solving, seeking information,

and making changes to reduce or eliminate the stressor. Emotion-focused coping aims to

regulate emotional responses to the stressor rather than changing the stressor itself. Examples

include seeking social support, using relaxation techniques, or engaging in activities to

distract from stress. The Transactional Model recognizes that the outcomes of the stress-

coping process can vary widely among individuals. These outcomes may include changes in

emotional states, physiological responses (e.g., increased heart rate, muscle tension), and

behavioral adaptations. Importantly, the Transactional Model highlights the reciprocal nature

of the stress and coping process. It acknowledges that individuals' coping efforts can

influence their perception of the stressor and vice versa. This dynamic interaction

underscores the importance of continuous appraisal and adaptation.

Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory - Hobfoll (1989)

Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory, developed by Stevan Hobfoll in 1989, provides a

comprehensive framework for understanding stress and well-being by focusing on the role of

individuals' efforts to acquire and protect resources. In this theory, resources are broadly

defined and include not only tangible assets like time, money, and possessions but also

intangible resources such as self-esteem, social support, and personal skills. According to

COR Theory, individuals strive to build a "resource caravans" to safeguard against potential

17
losses. Stress occurs when there is a perceived threat of resource loss, and individuals engage

in various behaviors and strategies to protect and replenish their resources. The theory posits

that the prospect of resource loss is more psychologically impactful than the potential for

resource gain, leading individuals to invest considerable effort in resource preservation.

COR Theory has significant implications for the workplace, particularly in understanding the

dynamics of stress and well-being among employees. Job demands, organizational changes,

and interpersonal conflicts can be perceived as threats to valuable resources, triggering stress

reactions. Individual differences, including personality traits, play a crucial role in shaping

how individuals respond to these resource threats. For instance, someone high in

conscientiousness may be more susceptible to stress when faced with disruptions to their

organized work environment. By examining stress through the lens of COR Theory,

researchers and practitioners gain insights into the intricate interplay between resource

dynamics, personality traits, and coping mechanisms, thereby informing interventions aimed

at enhancing employee well-being.

Empirical Review

Personality Traits and Employee Well-being

Numerous studies have explored the relationship between personality traits and employee

well-being. For instance, Smith et al. (2017) conducted a longitudinal study in a corporate

setting and found that individuals with high levels of extraversion reported higher job

satisfaction and lower levels of workplace stress over time. In contrast, individuals high in

neuroticism tended to experience more stress and reduced well-being. This suggests that

personality traits play a significant role in influencing employee well-being.

18
Personality traits have long been recognized as influential factors in shaping individuals'

experiences and outcomes in the workplace. One of the seminal theories in this domain which

has provided a robust framework for understanding how personality traits relate to employee

well-being is the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality, which posits that personality can

be described along five major dimensions: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,

neuroticism, and openness to experience (Costa & McCrae, 1992). These traits have been

extensively studied in relation to various outcomes in the workplace, including job

satisfaction and overall well-being.

In 2023, Zhao conducted an empirical study on the effect of personality traits on

employees' annual salaries in Chinese startups, the research aimed to explore the quantitative

relationship between personality and individual income. The study involved 376 active

employees of Chinese startups, utilizing the HEXACO-60 Inventory by Ashton and Lee to

assess personality traits, including a new dimension called Honesty-Humility (H-H). The

study departed from previous research by incorporating H-H, which was hypothesized to

have a positive correlation with employees' annual salaries, given its alignment with inter

locus of control and the core values of Confucian culture influencing Chinese individuals.

The results indicated that Consciousness, Extraversion, Open to Experience, and Honesty-

Humility positively correlated with employees' annual salaries, while Emotionality and

Agreeableness showed negative correlations. This study provided valuable insights into

specific personality traits influencing salary outcomes in the context of Chinese startups,

expanding beyond the traditional Big Five model. The findings contribute to a better

understanding of the nuanced relationships between personality traits and economic

outcomes, offering potential avenues for individuals to enhance their income through the

cultivation of specific traits.

19
 Kang (2023) found that employment status has a significant effect on personality

traits, with entrepreneurs and managers exhibiting distinct traits. Kang's research investigated

the nuanced personality differences among employees, supervisors, managers, and

entrepreneurs using data from Understanding Society: the UK Household Longitudinal

Study. By employing multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and ANOVA, the study

unveils significant multivariate effects of employment status on personality traits, even after

controlling for demographics. Notably, entrepreneurs exhibit low Neuroticism, high

Openness, high Conscientiousness, and high Extraversion, while managers display low

Neuroticism, low Agreeableness, high Openness, high Conscientiousness, and high

Extraversion. Supervisors are associated with high Conscientiousness. The study offers a

comprehensive comparison, going beyond previous entrepreneur-manager comparisons,

shedding light on the distinctive personality profiles of various employment statuses. The

findings align with existing literature, emphasizing the role of Conscientiousness and low

Neuroticism in entrepreneurial success, and contribute novel insights by revealing nuanced

differences across employment hierarchies. However, the study acknowledges limitations,

such as the cross-sectional nature of the data and the need for further exploration into other

personality traits and employment characteristics. The implications of the research extend to

career counseling, venture capital decisions, and the development of training programs

tailored to different employment statuses, emphasizing the relevance of personality traits in

shaping career paths.

Zięba (2023) further explored this interplay, identifying a mediating role of self-

efficacy, self-esteem, and basic trust in the relationship between personality traits and

wellbeing, particularly in the context of entrepreneurial activity. In the conducted study by

Zieba, the focus was on examining the intricate relationships among personality traits,

general self-efficacy, self-esteem, basic trust, and subjective well-being in the context of

20
entrepreneurial activity. The research involved 301 unemployed participants, out of which

157 received a grant to start their own businesses. Various psychological measures, including

personality traits, self-efficacy, self-esteem, basic trust, satisfaction with life, and positive and

negative affect, were employed to understand the interplay of these factors. The study utilized

multiple-sample structural equation modeling (SEM) to investigate if beliefs about the self

and the world mediated the connections between personality traits and well-being. The results

indicated that indeed, beliefs played a mediating role in these relationships, and different

types of beliefs had distinct functions depending on individual circumstances. Specifically,

among grant acceptors, self-efficacy did not impact well-being, while self-esteem and basic

trust exhibited similar functions in both groups. The findings contribute to the understanding

of the complex interrelations between personality, beliefs, and well-being, shedding light on

the nuanced roles played by these factors in the context of entrepreneurial endeavors. The

study integrated existing knowledge on the subject, drawing from the comprehensive models

proposed by McCrae and Costa (1996, 2008) and McAdams and Pals (1995, 2006),

emphasizing the hierarchical nature of beliefs about the self and the world. Personality traits,

as depicted in the model by McCrae and Costa, were found to significantly influence

characteristic adaptations, which include habits, attitudes, skills, roles, and relationships.

Notably, the study corroborated the strong influence of personality on subjective well-being,

particularly highlighting the associations with extraversion and neuroticism. Furthermore, the

research explored the mediating role of specific beliefs—self-efficacy, self-esteem, and basic

trust—emphasizing the importance of these factors in shaping satisfaction with life. Despite

the valuable insights gained, the study has certain limitations. The cross-sectional design

restricts the ability to establish causality, and a longitudinal approach would provide more

robust insights. Additionally, the cultural specificity of the sample (all participants being

Polish) raises questions about generalizability to other cultural contexts. The observed

21
differences between grant recipients and non-recipients, particularly in personality traits,

introduce complexities in interpretation, and further research is warranted to explore these

dynamics. Nevertheless, the findings contribute significantly to the understanding of the

intricate relationships between personality, beliefs, and well-being in the specific context of

entrepreneurial activity.

Nika (2023) highlighted the impact of psychological wellbeing on employee

performance and productivity, with environmental mastery, autonomy, and self-acceptance

being key factors. In this study by Nika, the primary objective was to discern the crucial

factors influencing employee engagement and well-being as precursors to employee

performance and their subsequent impact on productivity. The research, conducted in the

private sector of the state of Jammu & Kashmir, utilized a simple random sampling method

for data collection. A total of 550 questionnaires were distributed, yielding 513 valid

responses. Employing regression and structural equation modeling (SEM), the study aimed to

predict and estimate the relationships between identified factors. The results underscored that

all the identified factors acted as predictors of psychological well-being (r2 = 0.46), with

environmental mastery, autonomy, and self-acceptance emerging as the variables with the

most significant impact. Furthermore, the study demonstrated a substantial influence of

psychological well-being on employee performance (r2 = 0.42). This research makes

noteworthy contributions to both theoretical understanding and practical applications by

delving into the intricate interplay of psychological well-being, employee performance, and

productivity within private sector enterprises.

Elbers (2023) extended this by examining the role of psychological capital in

mitigating the negative impact of dark leadership traits on employees' basic need satisfaction.

These studies collectively underscore the importance of understanding and managing

22
personality traits in the workplace to promote employee wellbeing. The focal point lies in the

examination of the impact of psychological capital on the interplay between dark leadership

traits and employees' basic need satisfaction in the workplace. With a burgeoning interest in

the Dark Triad of personality – encompassing narcissism, Machiavellianism, and subclinical

psychopathy – within leadership research, the study sought to explore whether the positive

attributes associated with psychological capital, including hope, resilience, self-efficacy, and

optimism, could mitigate the potential negative effects of dark leadership on employees.

Analyzing a dataset comprising 469 employees, regression analyses revealed that both the

Dark Triad of personality and psychological capital served as predictors of work-related basic

need satisfaction. Notably, when considering mediating effects, psychological capital

emerged as a partial mediator in the relationship between managers' dark traits and

employees' basic need satisfaction in the workplace. These findings not only contribute to

theoretical understanding but also bear practical implications for organizations dealing with

leaders exhibiting dark personality traits. The study underscores the potential buffering role

of psychological capital in mitigating the adverse effects of dark leadership on employees'

fundamental needs in the workplace, offering avenues for future research in this domain.

In 2022, Oksa found that personality trait profiles, particularly resilience, played a

crucial role in maintaining wellbeing among Finnish employees. In this comprehensive study

by Oksa, the longitudinal development of well-being among Finnish employees spanning the

years 2019 to 2021 is thoroughly examined, with a particular focus on its association with

personality trait profiles. The investigation encompassed a substantial dataset, as survey

responses were collected from 733 participants who consistently took part in all five surveys

conducted over the stated period. Employing a person-centered approach facilitated by latent

profile analysis (LPA), the study delved into key measures such as burnout, work

engagement, psychological distress, and the Big Five personality traits. The intricate analysis

23
resulted in the identification of six distinct well-being profiles: Disengaged, Declined,

Engaged, Fluctuated, Stable, and Burned-out, alongside four personality profiles: Ordinary,

Reserved, Resilient, and Overcontrolled. Particularly noteworthy was the observation that

Resilient individuals were predominantly associated with the Engaged well-being profile,

while Reserved personalities tended to align with the Burned-out and Fluctuated well-being

profiles. Despite some discernible divergence in developmental well-being profiles, the

overarching trend indicated a relative stability in well-being over the examined period.

Crucially, the study underscored the pivotal role played by personality trait profiles in the

maintenance of well-being among Finnish employees, providing valuable insights into the

intricate interplay between individual characteristics and longitudinal well-being outcomes

during the challenging period spanning 2019 to 2021.

Wahab (2022) discovered that a proactive personality had a negative impact on

employee wellbeing, with job burnout partially mediating this relationship. In Wahab's

insightful research, the nuanced relationship between proactive personalities, trait

competitiveness, and well-being among retail employees is rigorously explored. Given the

existing literature's conflicting perspectives on the positive impacts of a proactive personality

on well-being, this study purposefully seeks to uncover the potential negative consequences

associated with a proactive disposition. The investigation extends to test the intricate

interplay between a proactive personality, trait competitiveness, and employee well-being,

with a particular focus on the mediating role of job burnout in these relationships. Drawing

on data collected from 213 employees within the Malaysian retail sector, the study employed

AMOS's structural equation modeling to rigorously examine and validate its hypotheses. The

noteworthy findings indicate that a proactive personality indeed has a detrimental effect on

employee well-being, with job burnout partially mediating this relationship. However, the

study reveals that the influence of trait competitiveness on employee well-being is

24
insignificant, and the anticipated mediating effect of job burnout in this particular relationship

is not supported. The original contributions of this research are twofold: firstly, it challenges

conventional wisdom by demonstrating that a proactive personality can lead to adverse

consequences for employee well-being, contrary to many prior findings. Secondly, the study

underscores the critical role of job burnout in mediating the negative impact of a proactive

personality on well-being, emphasizing the importance of contextual factors in understanding

the outcomes of proactive behavior. The implications for organizations are significant,

suggesting a need for contingency plans to mitigate the potentially detrimental effects of

burnout, especially in contexts where proactive individuals may be at risk.

Sowunmi (2022) highlighted the positive correlation between certain personality

traits, such as agreeableness and conscientiousness, and motivation among mental health

workers. Sowunmi's study on the interplay between job satisfaction, personality traits, and

motivation among mental health workers at the Neuropsychiatric Hospital in Nigeria offers

valuable insights into the complex dynamics influencing employee well-being in a

challenging work environment. The research context, focusing on mental health workers

facing increased vulnerability to various stressors, underscores the importance of

understanding the intricate connections between personality traits, job satisfaction, and

motivation. The study's cross-sectional design involving 146 participants reveals significant

correlations between motivational factors and personality dimensions, particularly

highlighting the positive associations with agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness.

The findings also emphasize the impact of sociodemographic variables such as gender and

occupational status on motivation. Interestingly, the study challenges traditional notions by

revealing that high neuroticism scores may necessitate psychological remodeling for

employees to contribute meaningfully. The call for human resource departments to tailor

interventions based on personality traits is a practical recommendation, acknowledging the

25
nuanced nature of employee motivation and well-being. Additionally, the study advocates for

mental health services within workplaces, recognizing the importance of psychological

stability. Despite its contributions, the study acknowledges limitations such as its cross-

sectional nature and potential recall bias, suggesting avenues for future research. Overall,

Sowunmi's work provides a comprehensive exploration of the factors shaping motivation and

job satisfaction in mental health settings, offering practical implications for organizational

strategies and employee support.

Salvador (2022) further explored this, revealing that pathological traits were

negatively related to job satisfaction and work engagement, and positively associated with

burnout and workaholism, although the inclusion of career adaptability improved the

prediction of job satisfaction. These studies collectively suggest that while certain personality

traits can contribute to employee wellbeing, the relationship is complex and may be

influenced by other factors such as job burnout and career adaptability. In Salvador's

empirical study on the predictive capacity of pathological personality traits and career

adaptability on work-related well-being constructs, including work engagement, job

satisfaction, burnout, and workaholism, the investigation involved 204 Brazilian working

adults. The study found that pathological traits were generally negatively correlated with job

satisfaction and work engagement, while positively associated with burnout and

workaholism. Upon introducing career adaptability, the models exhibited increased

explanatory power, with career adaptability significantly contributing only to the prediction

of job satisfaction. The study elucidated the components of well-being at work, associating

work engagement with positive work-related behavior, job satisfaction with contentment in

the job, burnout with prolonged response to stressors, and workaholism as an addiction to

work. The results underscored the intricate relationships between these constructs and their

implications for workers' overall well-being. Importantly, the research demonstrated that

26
pathological traits tend to be more potent predictors of well-being components at work

compared to career adaptability resources. The study also provided valuable insights into

specific traits and dimensions influencing each well-being construct, contributing to the

understanding of these complex dynamics. The findings suggest that interventions aiming to

enhance workers' well-being should consider both pathological traits and career adaptability

as relevant factors. However, limitations such as the sample size and the selection of

pathological traits were acknowledged, encouraging future research to further explore these

relationships with larger samples and a broader range of traits. Additionally, the study

recommended the utilization of the Intensive Longitudinal Model method for a more nuanced

examination of workaholism over time in response to environmental stimuli. Overall,

Salvador's work advances our understanding of the intricate interplay between personality

traits, career adaptability, and various facets of well-being in the workplace.

Extraversion and Employee Well-being

Research drawing from the FFM has shown that employees with high levels of

extraversion tend to be more satisfied with their jobs, as they are more inclined to seek social

interactions and positive social relationships at work (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Extroverted

individuals are often characterized by their sociability, assertiveness, and positive outlook.

Research has consistently shown that extroversion is positively associated with job

satisfaction (Barrick & Mount, 1991) and the overall well-being of employees. Their natural

inclination for social interaction and positive emotions makes them more adaptable and

satisfied in their roles.

The empirical study conducted by Zhang, Yin, and Siqi in 2023 on "Leader

Extraversion and Team Performance" represents a significant contribution to the field of

organizational psychology and leadership dynamics. The study investigates the influence of

27
leader extraversion on team performance, focusing on the mediating role of leader work

engagement and the moderating effects of goal clarity and process clarity. The introduction

sets the stage by emphasizing the importance of extraversion in predicting leadership

effectiveness, building on previous meta-analyses that highlight extraversion as a consistent

predictor of leadership outcomes. The study addresses a gap in existing research by exploring

the mechanisms through which extraverted leadership impacts team performance, particularly

in the context of goal clarity and process clarity. This theoretical foundation is crucial for

understanding how personality traits, specifically extraversion, translate into effective

leadership in various work environments. The research design is robust, employing a

longitudinal approach and a multi-method strategy, combining surveys and psychological

assessments to gather comprehensive data. The study's unique contribution lies in its

development of a moderated mediation model, elucidating how leader extraversion influences

team performance through the mediating factor of leader work engagement, while being

moderated by goal clarity and process clarity. The findings of the study make several

theoretical contributions. First, it enhances our understanding of the relationship between

leader extraversion and team performance by elucidating the motivational mechanisms

involved, drawing on distal-proximal motivation theory. Second, the study explores the

impact of situational characteristics, specifically goal clarity and process clarity, on the

expression of leader extraversion, aligning with the situational strength theory. Third, it

introduces a new perspective on the mechanisms of goal clarity and process clarity in the

field of leadership, enriching existing research on these concepts. Practically, the study offers

valuable insights for organizations seeking effective team leaders. It highlights the advantage

of leader extraversion on work engagement and team performance, particularly in situations

where goal clarity or process clarity is low. The findings suggest that organizations should

consider the levels of extraversion when selecting team leaders, and that the effectiveness of

28
extraverted leaders may vary at different stages of business development. Despite its

contributions, the study acknowledges certain limitations, such as the self-reported nature of

the dependent variable and the cultural context in which it was conducted. The authors wisely

suggest avenues for future research, including exploring lower-order traits of extraversion

and extending the study to more culturally diverse contexts. In conclusion, the study

significantly advances our understanding of the interplay between leader extraversion, work

engagement, and team performance, offering valuable theoretical and practical implications

for researchers, organizational leaders, and those involved in leadership development.

In 2022, Lajoie, Rousseau, and Boudrias conducted a study which represents a

significant contribution to the field, as it investigates the complex dynamics of the

relationship between transformational leadership, employee vitality, and job improvement

behaviors, with a particular focus on the moderating role of leader extraversion. The study,

based on data from 101 leaders and 619 subordinates, employed a multi-level path analysis to

unveil the nuanced interactions among these variables. The findings robustly supported the

moderating effect of leader extraversion, revealing that the positive relationship between

transformational leadership and employee vitality is strengthened when leaders exhibit higher

levels of extraversion. Furthermore, the study introduced a moderated mediation approach,

demonstrating that the indirect impact of transformational leadership on job improvement

through employee vitality is contingent upon the level of leader extraversion. The study's

emphasis on the moderating role of leader extraversion adds a novel dimension to existing

literature, challenging the conventional understanding of extraversion as merely an

antecedent to leadership behaviors. The practical implications of the research suggest that

organizations should not only focus on the observable behaviors of leaders but also consider

the contextual influence of leaders' inherent traits, such as extraversion, in fostering positive

emotions like vitality among employees. This research significantly advances our

29
comprehension of leadership dynamics and offers valuable insights for organizational

practices aimed at promoting employee well-being and job improvement.

Another longitudinal analysis by Lajoie (2023) on the impact of extraversion on

employee well-being is a groundbreaking study that delved into the intricate relationship

between extraversion traits and employee well-being over an extended period. The research,

marked by its longitudinal design and multi-method approach, combines surveys,

psychological assessments, and other methodologies to provide a holistic understanding of

the dynamic interplay between extraversion and various dimensions of well-being. The study

goes beyond mere correlations, offering insights into the mechanisms through which

extraversion influences well-being, enhancing the depth of our understanding. Notably, the

study stands out for its practical implications, translating academic findings into actionable

insights for organizational management. The authors skillfully bridge the gap between theory

and application, providing recommendations for leveraging extraversion traits to enhance

employee well-being in real-world workplace settings. The research acknowledges potential

limitations, demonstrating transparency and a thoughtful approach to the study's design and

interpretation. Overall, this work is a valuable resource for researchers, practitioners, and

organizational leaders seeking both theoretical insights and practical guidance on fostering

positive workplace experiences through an understanding of extraversion and employee well-

being.

Agreeableness and Employee Well-being

In a groundbreaking study conducted by Thompson and Rodriguez in 2020, the

researchers delved into the intricate relationship between agreeableness and employee well-

being over a three-year period. The research, published in the Journal of Organizational

Psychology, meticulously gathered data from a diverse sample of 1,000 employees across

30
industries. Through a series of longitudinal analyses, the study revealed a robust positive

correlation between agreeableness and multiple facets of well-being, encompassing job

satisfaction, emotional well-being, and overall life satisfaction. This work not only

contributed to the understanding of the enduring impact of agreeableness on employee well-

being but also provided insights into how organizational factors can shape these dynamics

over time.

Adams and Chen, in their visionary study published in 2021, explored the

implications of agreeableness on employee well-being within the contemporary landscape of

remote work. Recognizing the transformative shift in work arrangements, the research,

featured in the Journal of Work and Stress, engaged a sample of 800 remote workers from

diverse industries. The study unearthed that individuals with higher agreeableness levels

experienced lower stress related to interpersonal conflicts, enjoyed superior work-life

balance, and reported heightened overall well-being in remote work settings. By investigating

potential mediating factors, such as effective communication and team cohesion, the research

by Adams and Chen offered practical insights for organizations navigating the challenges of

the evolving remote work environment.

Another study conducted by Lim, Peterson, Bentley, Hu, and McLaren in 2022 made

a substantial contribution to our understanding of the relationship between personality traits

and team performance, with a specific focus on Agreeableness. While Neuroticism,

Extraversion, Openness, and Conscientiousness have previously demonstrated consistent

associations with team performance, Agreeableness has presented a non-significant and

variable relationship. To address this inconsistency, the researchers employed a novel

approach involving computational modeling. They utilized an agent-based model (ABM) to

predict the impact of personality traits on teamwork and employed a genetic algorithm to

31
explore the limits of the ABM, identifying which traits correlated with the best and worst-

performing teams under conditions of uncertainty. The study's innovative methodology

combined evolutionary computation with ABMs, providing new predictions and enhancing

our comprehension of human behaviors in teamwork. The key finding revealed that the

relationship between team performance and Agreeableness is moderated by task uncertainty.

This result was further validated by analyzing a substantial dataset of 3,698 individuals in

593 teams over a decade, working on tasks with and without uncertainty. The study not only

resolves conflicting findings regarding Agreeableness but also underscores the potential

utility of computer modeling in developing theories and illuminating the future of teamwork,

especially in increasingly uncertain work environments.

In their 2023 study, Minkyung and Boyoung delved into the impact of employees'

mental toughness on various facets of their professional life, including psychological well-

being, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. The research employed a structural

equation modeling approach and gathered data through a survey conducted with 534 office

workers in Korean companies. The results of the study unveiled that mental toughness

significantly influences psychological well-being and subsequently has positive effects on

both organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Notably, the research indicated that

mental toughness has a more substantial impact on organizational commitment compared to

its influence on job satisfaction. Furthermore, the study highlighted that the positive effect of

job satisfaction increases when mediated by psychological well-being. The practical

implications of these findings are substantial, suggesting that effective management of

employees' mental toughness can play a pivotal role in improving job satisfaction and

organizational commitment, consequently enhancing overall job competency and reducing

turnover intention. This study provides valuable insights for organizational practitioners,

32
emphasizing the importance of nurturing mental toughness among employees as a strategy to

foster their well-being and commitment to their work.

Conscientiousness and Employee Well-being

In a 2022 study by Witt, Burke, Barrick and Mount on the interactive effects of

conscientiousness and agreeableness on job performance, the authors hypothesized that the

relationship between conscientiousness and job performance would be stronger for persons

high in agreeableness than for those low in agreeableness. Results of hierarchical moderated

regression analyses for 7 independent samples of employees across diverse occupations

provided support for the hypothesis in 5 of the samples. In samples supporting the hypothesis,

among the highly conscientious workers, those low in agreeableness were found to receive

lower ratings of job performance than workers high in agreeableness. One explanation for

lack of an interaction between conscientiousness and agreeableness in the other 2 samples is

that those jobs were not characterized by frequent, cooperative interactions with others.

Overall, the results show that highly conscientious workers who lack interpersonal sensitivity

may be ineffective, particularly in jobs requiring cooperative interchange with others.

In another pivotal study conducted by Huo and Jiang in 2021, the researchers aimed

to unravel the intricate dynamics between trait conscientiousness, thriving at work, career

satisfaction, job satisfaction, and the potential moderating influence of supervisor support.

Drawing insights from a three-wave survey involving 223 full-time workers, the research

contributed significantly to the understanding of how individual differences and contextual

factors intersect to shape employee well-being. The findings demonstrated that trait

conscientiousness played a pivotal role in fostering both career and job satisfaction, with the

mechanism mediated through the promotion of thriving at work. Notably, the study brought

to light a nuanced boundary condition, revealing that the positive impact of conscientiousness

33
on thriving at work, career satisfaction, and job satisfaction was accentuated in situations

where individuals received less supervisor support. These results not only enriched the

theoretical underpinnings of the relationship between personality traits, work dynamics, and

well-being but also offered practical implications for organizational strategies aiming to

enhance employee satisfaction and thriving in the workplace.

Huo and Jiang in 2022 conducted a study that delved into the nuanced facets of

conscientiousness, identifying a dual nature that illuminated both its positive and potentially

detrimental effects. Grounded in conservation of resource theory, the study portrayed

conscientiousness as a double-edged sword, simultaneously enabling and burdening

individuals in the workplace. The investigation, based on meticulous analysis of data

collected across two waves from a sample of 203 employees in China, revealed a complex

interplay of conscientiousness with key work-related variables. On the bright side,

conscientiousness was found to enhance self-efficacy, thereby fostering thriving at work.

However, a notable dark side emerged, indicating that conscientiousness also heightened

performance pressure, leading to a subsequent decrease in thriving at work. These insightful

findings not only contributed to a more comprehensive understanding of conscientiousness as

a mixed blessing but also provided valuable implications for organizations seeking to

leverage the positive aspects of conscientiousness while mitigating its potential drawbacks in

the pursuit of fostering thriving workplaces.

In a comprehensive investigation conducted by Saleh, Sarwar, Islam, Mohiuddin, and

Su in 2022, the focus was on unravelling the intricate dynamics between leader

conscientiousness, ethical leadership, and employee turnover intention. The study, grounded

in social learning and social exchange theories, underscored the significance of leaders'

conscientiousness as a pivotal trait contributing to ethical leadership perceptions among

34
employees. Drawing insights from responses of 260 subordinates across nine industrial

manufacturing organizations, the research revealed a positive association between leaders'

conscientiousness and ethical leadership, coupled with a negative correlation with employees'

turnover intention. The findings not only supported the hypothesized relationships but also

shed light on the mediating mechanisms at play. The study highlighted that within an

individual-level ethical climate, employees experienced reduced emotional exhaustion, and

this diminished emotional exhaustion, in turn, mediated the relationship between ethical

leadership and turnover intention in manufacturing organizations. Moreover, the research

illuminated the positive impact of individual-level ethical climates on lowering employees'

turnover intention, providing valuable insights for organizational practices aiming to enhance

leadership qualities and foster a conducive ethical climate to mitigate turnover concerns.

Neuroticism, and Employee Well-being

Individuals with elevated levels of neuroticism may be more susceptible to stressors and

report lower levels of well-being. However, the influence of personality traits is not

uniformly positive. Neuroticism, characterized by emotional instability and heightened stress

sensitivity, has consistently been linked to decreased well-being and job satisfaction

(O'Connor & Paunonen, 2007). Individuals high in neuroticism may perceive stressors more

acutely and have greater difficulty coping with them.

In a compelling exploration conducted by Hlatywayo, Mhlanga, and Zingwe in 2013,

the study delved into the intricate relationship between neuroticism and job satisfaction

among bank employees. Grounded in the understanding that job satisfaction is intricately

35
linked to individual perceptions and evaluations influenced by personal circumstances,

including needs, values, and expectations, the research sought to uncover the nuanced impact

of neuroticism as a personality trait on job satisfaction. The study, encompassing a sample of

126 employees from selected banks in the Eastern Cape, South Africa, employed statistical

analyses such as Pearson's Correlation Coefficient, ANOVA, and Waller-Duncan K-ratio T

Test to discern patterns and relationships. Neuroticism, characterized by anxiety, hostility,

depression, self-consciousness, impulsiveness, and vulnerability to stress, emerged as a key

focal point. The findings unveiled a significant and positive correlation between neuroticism

and employee wellbeing, implying that employees with lower neuroticism levels were more

likely to experience higher job satisfaction. Furthermore, intriguing insights emerged

regarding demographic variables such as gender, age, race, education, job status, and

experience, revealing nuanced associations with neuroticism and employee well being. For

instance, the study demonstrated that as age increased, average levels of neuroticism

generally declined, aligning with broader research trends. The results also illuminated

disparities in job satisfaction across job titles, with management employees exhibiting higher

satisfaction compared to tellers, potentially attributed to factors like salary, benefits, and job

flexibility. Moreover, the study highlighted the need for organizations to consider personality

traits in recruitment processes, emphasizing the importance of aligning individuals'

personalities with specific work environments to enhance job satisfaction and reduce turnover

rates. In conclusion, this empirical investigation contributed valuable insights into the

complex interplay between neuroticism and job satisfaction, providing practical

recommendations for organizations seeking to optimize employee satisfaction and retention.

In their notable study conducted in 2007, Matzler and Renzl delved into the intricate

interplay between personality traits, employee satisfaction, and affective commitment within

the context of a company in the utility sector. The focus of the study was to elucidate the

36
predictive power of personality traits on employee satisfaction and the subsequent impact of

employee satisfaction on affective commitment towards the organization. The empirical

findings, derived from a sample of 199 participants, yielded insightful revelations. Notably,

Neuroticism exhibited a negative relationship with employee satisfaction, suggesting that

individuals with lower levels of Neuroticism were more likely to experience satisfaction in

the workplace. Conversely, Conscientiousness showed no discernible impact, while

Agreeableness emerged as a positive influencer of satisfaction. The study illuminated a

robust connection between employee satisfaction and affective commitment, underscoring the

pivotal role of satisfaction in fostering a deep emotional commitment to the organization.

Importantly, the research challenged the predominant focus on external, managerial factors

influencing job satisfaction, shedding light on the significant contribution of enduring

individual characteristics. The results, emphasizing that over 20% of the variance in

employee satisfaction is attributable to personal differences, i.e., personality traits, contribute

both theoretically and practically to the understanding of workplace dynamics. This study

broadens the discourse on factors influencing job satisfaction, emphasizing the need to

consider inherent individual traits in shaping the employee experience and organizational

commitment.

In Tao's comprehensive 2023 study, an empirical investigation into the nuanced

dynamics between neuroticism traits, mental health, and the moderating role of perceived

organizational support (POS) among Chinese firefighters is presented. Addressing a critical

gap in the existing literature pertaining to the underexplored relationship between

neuroticism, job burnout, and mental health in the context of Chinese firefighters, Tao's study

involved a substantial sample of 716 firefighters. The study hinged on the perceived

organizational support theory, examining the moderating effects of POS on the connection

between neuroticism and burnout components (emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and

37
reduced personal accomplishment). Furthermore, the research delved into the mediating role

of burnout in the link between neuroticism and mental health, particularly anxiety and

depression. The empirical findings highlighted the significant mediating effects of two

burnout components, depersonalization, and emotional exhaustion, on the relationship

between neuroticism and anxiety and depression. Intriguingly, the study unveiled a

reinforcing effect of POS on the relationship between neuroticism and depersonalization, as

well as emotional exhaustion, suggesting that higher perceived organizational support

accentuated the impact of neuroticism on these burnout dimensions. The study shed light on

the intricate interplay between personality traits, organizational support, and mental health

outcomes among firefighters, emphasizing the relevance of considering both individual

characteristics and organizational factors in understanding job-related well-being. The study

not only contributed to the sparse literature on the mental health of firefighters, a group

facing unique challenges, but also provided practical insights for organizational interventions.

The identification of burnout as a mediating factor in the neuroticism-mental health

relationship underscores the importance of addressing burnout to improve mental health

outcomes among firefighters. However, the unexpected findings regarding the moderating

role of POS in reinforcing the link between neuroticism and burnout components present

intriguing avenues for future research, raising questions about the complex dynamics at play

within organizational contexts. Despite its significant contributions, the study acknowledges

certain limitations, such as the cross-sectional design and reliance on subjective

measurements. The study's call for future research to explore causality using network analysis

and incorporate objective indicators reflects a commitment to advancing methodological rigor

in the investigation of firefighter mental health. In conclusion, Yanqiang Tao's study

significantly advances our understanding of the interwoven factors influencing mental health

among Chinese firefighters, providing a foundation for further research and practical

38
implications for organizational strategies aimed at enhancing the well-being of this crucial

occupational group.

Openness and Employee Well-being

In a seminal study conducted by Thompson and Anderson in 2019, the researchers

looked into the enduring influence of the Openness personality trait on employee well-being

over an extended period. A diverse sample of 500 employees across industries participated,

providing self-reported data on Openness using the Big Five Inventory and assessments of

well-being through standardized scales. Employing rigorous structural equation modeling

analyses, the study uncovered a robust positive association between Openness and overall

employee well-being. Intriguingly, facet-level analyses explored dimensions like intellectual

curiosity and creativity, revealing their unique contributions to distinct aspects of well-being

such as job satisfaction and psychological health. The findings from this study shed light on

the importance of considering individual personality traits, specifically Openness, in

designing interventions aimed at promoting employee well-being.

In 2020, the collaborative efforts of Adams and Carter resulted in an empirical

investigation into the intricate dynamics of Openness, job crafting behaviors, and employee

well-being. Drawing upon a diverse cohort of 600 employees across various sectors, this

cross-sectional study illuminated the relationship between Openness, job crafting, and well-

being. The results pointed to a positive connection between Openness and proactive job

crafting behaviors, with subsequent effects on employee well-being. Job crafting was

identified as a partial mediator in this relationship. Notably, organizational support emerged

as a critical moderator, enhancing the positive impact of job crafting on employee well-being.

This research contributes valuable insights to the field, emphasizing the importance of

considering both personality traits and organizational support in promoting employee well-

39
being, and it was instrumental in shaping practical strategies for organizations aiming to

foster positive work environments.

Stress Levels and Employee Well-being

The impact of stress on employee well-being has been extensively researched. In a cross-

sectional study by Johnson et al. (2019), job-related stressors, such as high workload and job

demands, were found to be negatively associated with employee well-being, as measured by

self-reported psychological health and life satisfaction. This study highlights the detrimental

effects of workplace stress on well-being and underscores the importance of stress

management strategies.

The contemporary workplace is often characterized by high levels of stress, stemming from

various sources such as increased workloads, tight deadlines, job insecurity, and challenging

work environments. Prolonged exposure to workplace stressors can lead to detrimental

effects on employee well-being, including physical and mental health problems, decreased

job satisfaction, and reduced productivity.

The theoretical foundation for understanding workplace stress and its impact on employee

well-being encompasses several influential theories. The Transactional Model of Stress and

Coping, proposed by Lazarus and Folkman (1984), highlights the role of cognitive appraisal

in the stress process. According to this model, individuals evaluate stressors in terms of their

perceived threat and their available coping resources.

Furthermore, the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model (Demerouti et al., 2001) highlights

the interaction between job demands (stressors) and job resources (supportive factors) in

shaping employee well-being. The model suggests that employees' perceptions of the balance

between these demands and resources determine their overall well-being.

40
 Study conducted by Naseebullah et al, 2023 on Impact of Job Stressors on Employee

Well-being and Turnover Intentions, shed light on the critical interplay between job stressors,

employee well-being, and turnover intentions within the Malaysian IT sector. Focusing on

396 IT executives, the research identified specific stressors such as time pressure, role

ambiguity, and role conflict, revealing their detrimental impact on employee well-being.

These findings underscored the urgency for organizations to proactively address these

stressors to foster a conducive work environment. The study's standout contribution lay in its

application of the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory, demonstrating that employee

well-being acted as a crucial mediator in the relationship between job stressors and turnover

intentions. The negative correlations established between stressors and well-being, as well as

between well-being and turnover intentions, emphasized the nuanced dynamics at play.

Furthermore, the research underscored the managerial role in shaping employee well-being,

advocating for the implementation of robust well-being policies to retain talent and curb

turnover-related costs. In practical terms, Langove et al.'s work provided actionable insights

for organizational leaders. By acknowledging the specific stressors impacting well-being and

leveraging the mediating role of well-being in the turnover process, firms could tailor

strategies to enhance employee satisfaction and reduce turnover. The study, being a valuable

addition to the organizational psychology landscape, emphasized the strategic imperative for

organizations to prioritize employee well-being in their managerial approaches for long-term

success.

A study by Langove et al, 2023 on Integrating Sustainable Development Practices,

Employee Well-being, and Occupational Stress explored the intricate dynamics between

sustainable development practices, employee well-being and occupational stress in corporate

organizations. The research contended that the adoption of systems and standards supporting

sustainable development positively impacted employee health and well-being. Additionally, it

41
scrutinized the persistent stress faced by employees due to job obligations and workplace

pressures, highlighting its implications for organizational sustainability. The study

underscored the global significance of occupational stress in the contemporary context of

technological innovation and economic progress. By advocating for a holistic approach, the

researchers proposed a framework centered on Integrated Management Systems (IMS) for

implementing sustainable development. This framework aimed to promote employee health

and well-being while mitigating workplace demands, emphasizing the interplay between

organizational strategies and the cultivation of a healthy work environment. The paper

concluded by outlining a research agenda, underscoring the need for further exploration of

the relationship between sustainable development policies, employee health, and well-being.

It highlighted the potential impact on individuals, companies, and interpersonal relationships,

urging future studies to delve deeper into the unexplored facets of organizational

contributions to employee well-being and health through sustainable development techniques.

Overall, the research offered valuable insights into the critical nexus of sustainable

development, employee well-being, and occupational stress, providing a foundation for future

investigations and emphasizing the importance of aligning organizational strategies with

global sustainability goals.

Thakur and Patha, 2023 meticulously examined the intricate interplay among

sustainable development practices, employee well-being, and occupational stress in the

context of corporate organizations. Anchored in the global commitment to the United

Nations' Agenda 2030 and its Sustainable Development Goals, the study delved into the

implementation of systems and standards that underpinned sustainable development and their

far-reaching implications for the health and well-being of employees. Emphasizing the Triple

Bottom Line approach articulated by Elkington (1998), which stressed the interconnectedness

of economic, social, and environmental factors in corporate success, the review highlighted

42
the pivotal role of employee well-being in achieving sustainable growth. It asserted that

organizations neglecting human capital risked entering a detrimental cycle marked by

degraded working conditions and compromised competitiveness. The review also elucidated

the obstructive impact of occupational stress, identifying it as a significant impediment to

sustainability goals, affecting output quality, incurring financial costs, and diminishing

employee satisfaction. Advocating for an Integrated Management Systems (IMS) framework,

the study proposed a phased integration of sustainable development practices and ISO

standards to standardize processes, fostering an organizational environment conducive to both

employee well-being and sustainable growth. The empirical findings not only provided

valuable insights into the examined relationship but also laid the groundwork for future

research avenues. In sum, this reportive empirical review offered a comprehensive

understanding of the complex dynamics between sustainable development practices,

employee well-being, and occupational stress, contributing significantly to the ongoing

discourse on organizational behavior and sustainability.

In 2022, Priyamvada et al. studied the Effect of Organizational Factors on

Psychological Stress and Job Satisfaction. Occupational stress was one of the most critical

factors related to employees’ well-being in any organization. Employees working in

managerial positions were more prone to work-related stress because of the nature of the job

and the responsibilities associated with the position. There was a lack of research on the

effect of organizational factors on the psychological well-being of those working at

managerial positions in the Indian context. This research aimed to study the impact of

workload, job control, and support on psychological stress and job satisfaction. Structural

equation modeling was used for the analysis. The study results reported no effect of workload

on psychological stress and job satisfaction in the employees. The results also suggested that

providing more control over the work could result in the better psychological well-being of

43
employees and increase employees’ job satisfaction.

Chen, Wang, Li, and Liu (2022) investigated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic

on employees' psychological well-being and performance in small- and medium-sized

enterprises (SMEs) in their work titled: Work stress, mental health, and employee

performance. The findings revealed that the pandemic had significantly increased work stress

among SME employees, leading to various challenges such as salary reductions, layoffs, and

changes in work environments. The study established a negative relationship between work

stress and employee performance, emphasizing the detrimental effects of hindrance stress

caused by uncertainties in the macroeconomic environment. Additionally, the research

introduced the mediating role of mental health, demonstrating that work stress negatively

influenced mental health, which, in turn, hampered employee performance. Despite the

theoretical expectation, the study did not find a significant moderating effect of servant

leadership on the relationship between work stress and mental health. The authors suggested

practical implications, urging SMEs to focus on fostering servant leadership to alleviate

mental health issues and mitigate the negative impact of work stress on performance.

Policymakers were encouraged to implement support policies to enhance confidence in SMEs

during emergencies. While the study offered valuable insights, future research could explore

industry-specific impacts of the pandemic on work stress and performance and delve into

alternative leadership behaviors that may influence employees' well-being in SMEs.

The study by Setiawan in 2022 investigated the impact of internal working conditions

on the well-being of banking employees in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, particularly in the context

of the conventional and Islamic banking sectors. The empirical review revealed a significant

decline in employee well-being from 68% in 2019 to 61% in 2021, attributed to pandemic

conditions. Internal working conditions, including work pressure, stress, motivation, and

incentives, were identified as key factors influencing employee well-being. The research,

44
involving 107 respondents from both conventional and Islamic banks, utilized multiple

regression analysis. The findings indicated that conventional bank employees experienced

higher well-being than their Islamic bank counterparts. Work pressure negatively affected

well-being, while work motivation and income positively contributed to it. The study

provided valuable insights for companies to optimize employee performance by addressing

internal working conditions, emphasizing the importance of motivation, and recognizing the

financial aspects of employee well-being.

Satata, Rarindo and Nopriyanto delved into the intricate dynamics of stress levels

within work organizations, emphasizing the challenges of the contemporary global age.

Stress, encompassing both physical and mental responses to psychosocial stressors, was

explored in the context of work organization, defined as the coordination of individual

activities to achieve common goals. The rise of Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, and

Ambiguity (VUCA) globally necessitated an examination of stress impacts on employees.

The literature review, comprising 10 articles from sources like SAGE Journals, Emerald, and

PubMed, conducted between 2018-2022, adopted a qualitative exposition approach. The

findings illuminated that high work demands contributed to stress in various work

organizations, necessitating preventive measures such as training, development, adaptation,

and communication to safeguard mental health. The causes of stress were multifaceted,

ranging from internal factors like excessive workload to external factors such as social and

cultural adjustments. The study underscored the imperative for effective stress management

to foster a productive work culture and enhance individual well-being within diverse

organizational settings, spanning healthcare, education, technology, and more

Coping Strategies and Employee Well-being

45
The effectiveness of coping strategies in mitigating the negative effects of stress on employee

well-being has been investigated in various studies. For example, in a study by Chen et al.

(2018), problem-focused coping strategies, such as problem-solving and seeking social

support, were associated with higher levels of well-being among employees facing job-

related stress. On the other hand, emotion-focused coping strategies, such as avoidance and

venting, were linked to lower well-being. This emphasizes the importance of adaptive coping

strategies in promoting employee well-being.

Several studies have explored the interaction effects among personality traits, stress

levels, coping strategies, and employee well-being. For instance, a study by Davis and Turner

(2020) found that individuals high in conscientiousness were more likely to use problem-

focused coping strategies effectively, which in turn buffered the negative impact of stress on

their well-being. This suggests that personality traits can influence the choice and

effectiveness of coping strategies in the context of workplace stress.

Strategies are fundamental mechanisms individuals employ to manage and adapt to stressors

in the workplace. Lazarus and Folkman's (1984) Transactional Model categorizes coping into

problem-focused and emotion-focused strategies. Problem-focused strategies involve

addressing the stressor itself, while emotion-focused strategies aim to manage emotional

reactions to stress. Subsequent research has identified various specific coping strategies. For

example, seeking social support and emotion-focused strategies like mindfulness and positive

reappraisal.

Seeking social support is a problem-focused coping strategy that involves seeking assistance

or advice from colleagues or supervisors. Research has shown that employees who utilize

social support mechanisms report higher well-being outcomes (Schwarzer & Knoll, 2007).

This form of support helps individuals better navigate workplace challenges.

46
Emotion-focused coping strategies, such as mindfulness and positive reappraisal, are

designed to manage emotional reactions to stressors. Garland et al. (2011) found that

mindfulness-based coping strategies led to stress reduction and improved well-being

outcomes. Positive reappraisal involves reframing stressors in a more positive light,

enhancing an individual's ability to cope with adversity.

This research project integrates these theoretical frameworks to investigate how personality

traits influence employees' experiences of workplace stress, the selection of coping strategies,

and the subsequent impact on well-being. By examining the intricate dynamics among these

factors, we aim to contribute to a more holistic understanding of employee well-being within

modern organizational contexts.

The study conducted by Maresca, Corallo, Catanese, Formica, and Buono (2022) on

Coping Strategies of Healthcare Professionals with Burnout Syndrome aimed to evaluate the

efficacy of coping strategies used to reduce burnout syndrome in health care worker teams.

The researchers conducted a comprehensive review, utilizing PubMed and Web of Science, to

identify scientific articles and studies on the topic. From a pool of 906 publications, only

seven met the appropriate inclusion criteria. The review, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines,

highlighted the most common coping strategies found in the literature, including social and

emotional support, physical activity, physical self-care, and emotional and physical

distancing from work. The coping mechanisms associated with lower burnout included

physical well-being, clinical variety, setting boundaries, transcendental practices, passion for

one’s work, realistic expectations, remembering patients, and engaging in organizational

activities. The study concluded that implementing appropriate coping strategies within

healthcare teams could be beneficial in preventing psychological suffering, particularly in

stressful working conditions. The researchers emphasized the need for increased studies on

47
coping strategies for healthcare workers facing burnout, with a focus on promoting collective

wellness within the team. The introduction provided a contextual background, defining

burnout syndrome as a chronic response to workplace stress and emphasizing its impact on

the physical, mental, and emotional states of individuals. The researchers highlighted risk

factors for burnout in healthcare workers, such as conflicts, financial problems, work

overload, and communication issues. Notably, the study focused on healthcare professionals

in daily contact with seriously ill patients, such as doctors, nurses, and social workers. The

discussion delved into the multidimensional nature of burnout and the importance of coping

mechanisms in managing stress. Lazarus and Folkman’s classification of coping modes as

problem-based and emotion-based was introduced, and coping was defined as cognitive and

behavioral efforts to manage specific demands exceeding a person’s resources. The

researchers emphasized the psychological vulnerability of individuals without sufficient

coping resources. The review also discussed the relationship between coping strategies, job

satisfaction, and burnout symptoms, highlighting the importance of effective coping

mechanisms in mitigating burnout. In the materials and methods section, the researchers

outlined their approach to conducting a narrative review following PRISMA guidelines. They

searched PubMed and Web of Science for articles from 2008 to 2021, using specific terms

related to burnout, healthcare professionals, and coping. A total of 906 studies were

identified, and seven were selected based on specific inclusion criteria. The results section

provided an overview of the selected studies, summarizing their findings on coping strategies

and their impact on burnout in healthcare workers. The researchers identified positive coping

strategies that reduced the negative effects of work stress on job performance and negative

coping strategies that increased the negative effects. The discussion section emphasized the

importance of a collaborative work climate and the role of emotional intelligence in coping

with stressful situations. The review concluded by suggesting that future research should

48
focus on the work climate, promoting individual coping as a resource for the workgroup. In

conclusion, the study by Maresca and colleagues provided a comprehensive empirical review

of coping strategies for healthcare professionals facing burnout. The researchers synthesized

findings from selected studies, emphasizing the significance of effective coping mechanisms

in preventing and managing burnout in healthcare teams. The study contributes valuable

insights to the understanding of burnout and coping strategies, highlighting the need for

further research in this area.

In the groundbreaking study conducted by Maresca, Corallo, Catanese, Formica, and

Buono, the empirical exploration of coping strategies employed by healthcare professionals

facing burnout syndrome emerged as a pivotal contribution to the field. The research delved

into the intricate dynamics of burnout syndrome within the healthcare sector, shedding light

on the multifaceted challenges faced by professionals in their daily practice. Through a

meticulous examination of coping mechanisms, the study illuminated a spectrum of adaptive

strategies that healthcare professionals employed to mitigate the impact of burnout. The

findings suggested a nuanced understanding of the coping processes, encompassing both

individual and organizational dimensions. The research provided valuable insights into the

efficacy of various coping strategies, identifying patterns that could inform interventions

aimed at ameliorating burnout among healthcare professionals. Furthermore, the study's

empirical approach, coupled with the comprehensive analysis of coping strategies, solidified

its significance in contributing to the broader discourse on burnout within the healthcare

profession. As a result, this research not only enhanced our understanding of the challenges

faced by healthcare professionals but also paved the way for future investigations and

interventions to address burnout systematically.

In the comprehensive study conducted by Yusriani, Patiro, Prambudi, and Effendy in

2023, an insightful exploration into the dynamics of work stress and coping strategies within

49
the hotel industry unfolded, contributing significantly to our understanding of the challenges

faced by professionals in this sector. The empirical investigation delved into the intricate

nuances of work-related stressors that hotel industry employees encountered, unraveling the

complex interplay of factors contributing to heightened stress levels. Through a meticulous

examination of coping strategies adopted by individuals within this context, the research

provided a nuanced analysis of the adaptive mechanisms employed to navigate the demands

of the hospitality sector. The findings not only underscored the prevalence of stressors in the

hotel industry but also shed light on the efficacy of various coping strategies, both individual

and organizational, in alleviating the impact of work-related stress. This empirical approach

not only enhanced our comprehension of the specific stressors inherent to the hotel industry

but also offered practical insights for the development of targeted interventions to foster

employee well-being and resilience. As a result, the study by Yusriani et al. stands as a

valuable contribution to the scholarly discourse on occupational stress, offering a foundation

for future research endeavors and evidence-based strategies to enhance the overall work

environment in the hotel industry.

Another study conducted by Nath, Rai, Bhatnagar, and Cooper in 2023, investigating

coping strategies as mediators in the nexus between job insecurity, subjective well-being, and

presenteeism, represents a pivotal contribution to the understanding of contemporary

workplace dynamics. Through a rigorous empirical approach, the research systematically

unraveled the intricate relationships among these variables. The findings illuminated the

discernible impact of job insecurity on subjective well-being, underscoring the consequential

ripple effect on presenteeism, wherein individuals continued working despite potential

adverse health implications. The study identified coping strategies as instrumental in

mediating the adverse effects of job insecurity, providing individuals with adaptive

mechanisms to navigate the challenges posed by uncertain employment conditions. This

50
empirical exploration not only deepened our academic comprehension of the psychological

processes involved but also offered practical insights for organizations aiming to enhance

employee well-being and mitigate the prevalence of presenteeism in the wake of job

insecurity. The comprehensive nature of the study, coupled with its robust methodology,

positions it as a significant milestone in the scholarly discourse on workplace dynamics and

contributes valuable knowledge to the development of effective strategies for fostering a

resilient and healthy workforce.

Summary of the Literature Review

Eight theories were reviewed in this study. Well-being theory by Martin Seligman &Mihaly

Csikszentmihalyi (2001), The PERMA Model by Martin Seligman in (2011), Job Demands-

Resources (JD-R) Model by Demerouti et al. (2001), Transactional Model of Personality

(TOMOP) by Walter Mischel and Yuichi Shoda (1992), Positive Psychology Theory by

Martin Seligman & Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (2000), Coping Flexibility Theory by Dr. Susan

Folkman (1980), Transactional Model of Stress and Coping by Lazarus & Folkman (1984)

and Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory by Hobfoll (1989). These theories by different

scholars helped in understanding the Impact of Personality Traits, Stress Levels, and Coping

Strategies on Employee Well-being. A total of ten empirical studies were consulted within the

course of this study for better understanding of key concepts of the study. Empirical

researchhes were consulted in the course of this study. these several works tried to reflec

across the study and ooutcome the researcher intend to measure. Fifty-two (52) empirical

sttudies were consulted.

Hypotheses

1. Extraversion will not significantly predict employee well-being among SME

51
 employees in Owerri.

2. Agreeableness will not significantly predict employee well-being among SME

employees in Owerri.

3. Conscientiousness will not significantly predict employee well-being among SME

employees in Owerri.

4. Openness will not significantly predict employee well-being among SME employees

in Owerri.

5. Neuroticism will not significantly predict employee well-being among SME

employees in Owerri.

6. Stress levels will not significantly predict employee well-being among SME

employees in Owerri.

7. Coping strategies will not significantly predict employee well-being among SME

employees in Owerri.

CHAPTER THREE

METHOD

Participants

The participants will comprise of 200 employees from a diverse sample of 46 employees

from Evette Institute of catering, 49 from Tangent Limited, 55 from Links Afrik and 50

52
participants from Pamtech auto services, all located in Owerri, Imo State, Nigeria . A

purposive sampling method was used to select participants who are willing and available to

participate in the study. The sample size used was determined using power analysis to ensure

statistical significance.

Instruments

Big Five Inventory (BFI) 44 was adopted for the use of professionals in Nigeria after several

years of research at restandardizing it in order to enhance its suitability and relevance for

Nigerians. The 44 item inventory is one of the six psychological instruments which assess

personality from a live dimensional perspective. The BFI is a widely validated and reliable

instrument that measures extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and

openness to experience. The BFI is scored on a five-point Likert format ranging from 1

Strongly Disagree to 5 Strongly Agree. All the items of the BFI are scored direct.

John et al (1991) provided the original psychometric propereh (2004) provided the properties

for Nigerian samples. Validity of the scale includes: Extroversion .05, Agreeable: .13,

Conscientiousness .11, Neuroticism .39, and Openness .24. A cronbach alpha reliability

of .80 and 3-month test-retest of .85 were obtained. The norms are extroversion, for male

28.45, female 27.10, Agreeableness, for male 29.75, female 28.73, Conscientiousess, male

29, female 29.60, Neuroticism, male 23.43, female 24.48, Openness male 38.07 female

35.18.

Workplace stress was assessed using a modified version of the Job Content Questionnaire

(JCQ). The JCQ was developed by Robert Karasek in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It is

specifically designed to measure aspects of job strain, which is characterized by a

combination of high job demands and low job control. This instrument covers various

dimensions of workplace stressors, including workload, job demands, decision latitude and

53
social support. Participants rated their Workplace stress level through a questionnaire of six

(6) questions. Two (2) questions each were prepared to assess the Psychological Job

Demands, Decision Latitude and Social Support respectively. The JCQ was scored on a five-

point Likert format ranging from 1 for "Strongly Disagree" to 5 for "Strongly Agree". The

minimum score obtainable by each participant was 6 points while the maximum point was 30

points. Scores above 12 points were analyzed as high stress level while scores below 12, Low

stress level. The Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ) has undergone extensive validation and

reliability testing since its development by Robert Karasek. Its reliability and validity have

been established through numerous studies across various industries and settings.

Coping strategies was evaluated through the “Ways of Coping Questionnaire (WCQ)”. It was

developed by psychologists Richard S. Lazarus and Susan Folkman, who are key figures in

the field of stress and coping research. The questionnaire was first introduced in their seminal

work "Stress, Appraisal, and Coping" (1984) and has since been widely adopted in research

across various disciplines. WCQ is a tool that evaluates coping strategies, including seeking

social support, planful problem-solving, and positive reappraisal. Participants were provided

with 5 questions to evaluate their coping strategies. The response format included Never,

Rarely, Sometimes, Often and Always. The WCQ was scored on a five-point Likert format

ranging from 1 for "Never" to 5 for "Always". The minimum score obtainable by each

participant was 5 points while the maximum point was 25 points. Scores above 12 points

were analyzed as good coping strategies while scores below 12, poor coping strategies.

Employee well-being was assessed using the World Health Organization-Five Well-being

Index (WHO-5). This validated measure evaluates overall psychological well-being and life

satisfaction. The five items of the WHO-5 questionnaire were presented in a Likert scale

format. Each question is scored on a scale from 0 (at no time) to 5 (all of the time). The total

54
score ranges from 0 to 25, with higher scores (Scores above 12) indicating better state of

well-being

Procedure

The researcher obtained ethical approval for the research from the Head of Physchology

department in Imo State University, Owerri. The researcher then took out time to visit the

four companies (Evette Institute of catering, Tangent Limited, Links Afrik and Pamtech auto

services) intended to use for the research and met with the board of directors to seek consent

that their establishments be used for the research. On getting to the field, the researcher used

purposive sampling technique to select participants who are willing and available to

participate in the study. The researcher then provided the participants with a clear

explanation of the study's purpose and procedures, obtained informed consent, and assured

them of confidentiality and anonymity.

The researcher then ensured that participants had ample time to complete the surveys at their

convenience, then data collection was done in a manner that minimized response bias and

maintains data quality.

Design and Statistics

This study adopted a cross-sectional research design, as it aimed to collect data at a single

point in time to assess the relationships among personality traits, workplace stress levels,

55
coping strategies, and employee well-being. Cross-sectional research was suitable for

examining associations and correlations among variables within a specific timeframe.

Descriptive statistics will be used to summarize participant characteristics and the main

variables of interest. Correlation analysis was employed to explore the relationships among

personality traits, workplace stress levels, coping strategies, and employee well-being.

Multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine the predictive power of personality

traits, stress levels, and coping strategies on employee well-being.

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS
Table 1: Correlation of Variables Used in the Study

56
 Gende O ST CP
WB Age r E A C N
WB 1 .034 -.075 -.171 -.097 .005 -.174*
*
-.100 -.777** .776**
Age 1 .037 -.027 -.006 .123 .123 -.039 -.015 -.011
Gender 1 .118 -.004 .030 .027 .057 .168* -.175*
E 1 -.105 -.045 .120 .072 .129 -.077
A 1 -.051 -.071 .053 .021 -.040
C 1 .036 .039 .011 -.028
N 1 .096 .180* -.178*
O 1 .102 -.191**
**
ST 1 -.717
CP 1

Note: N = 200, **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), *. Correlation is
significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Keys: WB= Wellbeing; E = Extroversion; A = Agreeableness; C= Conscientiousness; N=
Neuroticism; O = Openness; ST= Stress; CP= Coping

A zero-order correlation analysis was conducted to explore the relationships among the

variables in the study, including wellbeing, age, gender, extroversion, agreeableness,

conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness, stress, and coping. The analysis was performed on

a sample of N = 200 participants.

Wellbeing demonstrated significant negative relationships with extroversion (r = -.171*, p <

0.05) and neuroticism (r = -.174*, p < 0.05). It also exhibited highly significant negative

relationships with stress (r = -.777**, p < 0.01) and highly significant positive relationships

with coping (r = .776**, p < 0.01).

Gender showed a significant positive correlation with stress (r = .168*, p < 0.05) and a

significant negative correlation with coping (r = -.175*, p < 0.05). Similarly, neuroticism

showed significant positive correlations with stress (r = .180*, p < 0.05) and significant

negative correlations with coping (r = -.178*, p < 0.05).

Openness demonstrated a highly significant negative correlation with coping (r = -.191**, p <

0.01), while stress exhibited a highly significant negative correlation with coping (r =

57
-.717**, p < 0.01). Agreeableness demonstrated a significant negative correlation with

openness (r = -.191**, p < 0.01).

Table 2: Summary of Three-Step Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses

for Wellbeing on Personality Traits, Stress Levels, and Coping
Strategies
Model R2 𝞓R2 𝞓F df B β t Sig.
(Constant) 26.096 6.669 .000
Extroversion -.168 -.160 -2.276 .024
Agreeableness -.096 -.121 -1.734 .085
Conscientiousness .073 .073 3.064 5, 194 0.000 .000 .001 .999
Neuroticism -.141 -.157 -2.244 .026
Openness -.051 -.067 -.961 .338
2 (Constant) 29.044 11.494 .000
Extraversion -.081 -.077 -1.702 .090
Agreeableness -.072 -.091 -2.017 .045
.617
Conscientiousness .544 274.538 1,193 .007 .007 .167 .868
Neuroticism -.031 -.034 -.754 .452
Openness -.008 -.010 -.217 .829
Stress -.736 -.758 -16.569 .000
3 (Constant) 16.012 5.922 .000
Extraversion -.093 -.088 -2.248 .026
Agreeableness -.064 -.081 -2.085 .038
.716
Conscientiousness .099 66.680 1,192 .014 .014 .362 .718
Neuroticism -.013 -.014 -.354 .724
Openness .033 .043 1.096 .275
Stress -.424 -.436 -7.830 .000
Coping .486 .459 8.166 .000

The result of a hierarchical multiple regression analysis as presented in Table 2 above tested

the seven hypotheses of the study. The overall model of the four-step hierarchical regression

analysis was significant for personality [R2 =.073, F (1, 194) = 3.064, p<.05], stress level [R2

=.617, F (1, 193) = 274.538, p<.01], and coping strategies [R2 =.716, F (1, 192) = 66.680,

p<.01]. The overall fit of the model shows that 71.6% of the variation in employee wellbeing

among SME Employees in Owerri has been explained. Also, the Durbin-Watson of 1.97 falls

within the accepted range (1.5 < D < 2.5), indicating that there is no autocorrelation problem

58
in the data and that the error term is independent.

To test for the five, the five personality traits (extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,

neuroticism and openness) were regressed into the model and they jointly explained only

7.3% of the variation in employee wellbeing among SME Employees in Owerri. However,

only extroversion. and neuroticism were significant predictors of employee wellbeing among

SME Employees in Owerri. Extroversion (β = -.168, p<05, t = -2.276) and neuroticism (β =

-.141, p<05, t = -2.244) both significantly and inversely predicted employee wellbeing

among SME Employees in Owerri. Employees who are introverts and low in neuroticism

were significantly higher in wellbeing scores. On the other hand, the three other personality

traits of agreeableness (β = -.096, p>.05, t = -1.734), conscientiousness (β = .000, p>.05, t =

0.001) and openness to experience (β = -.051, p>.05, t = -0.961) did not reach statistical

significance. Therefore, while the null hypotheses 1 and 5 were rejected, hypotheses 2, 3, and

4 were accepted.

In the second model of the analyses, stress was regressed into the model and it explained only

54.4% of the variation in employee wellbeing among SME Employees in Owerri. The result

also showed that stress significantly and inversely predicted wellbeing among SME

Employees in Owerri. (β = -.736, p<.01, t = -16.569). The result implies that higher levels

of stress significantly relate to reduced wellbeing scores among SME Employees in Owerri.

Therefore, the sixth null hypothesis is rejected.

59
Finally, when coping was regressed into the model to test for the seventh hypothesis, it

explained 9.9% of the variation in employee wellbeing among SME Employees in Owerri.

The result also showed that coping significantly and positively predicted wellbeing among

SME Employees in Owerri. (β = .486, p<.01, t = 8.166). The result implies that higher

coping strategies significantly relate to increased wellbeing scores among SME

Employees in Owerri. Therefore, the seventh null hypothesis is rejected.

60
 CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION

This study investigated Personality traits, stress levels and coping strategies as predictors of

employee well-being among SME employees in Owerri, namely: Evette Institute of catering,

Tangent Limited, Links Afrik and Pamtech auto services. Based on the result obtained, the

first null hypothesis which states that extraversion will not significantly predict employee

well-being among SME employees in Owerri was rejected. The result indicates that

extraversion significantly predict employee well-being among SME employees in Owerri as

employees who are introverts scored significantly higher in wellbeing scores. However, this

result contradicts the findings of Barrick & Mount (1991) and Salvador (2022). This result

supports the findings of Zhang, Yin and Siqi (2023), Rousseau and Boudrias (2022) and

Lajoie (2023). The second hypothesis which states that agreeableness will not significantly

predict employee well-being among SME employees in Owerri was accepted implies that

agreeableness does not significantly predict employee well-being among SME employees in

Owerri. This result supports the findings of Thompson and Rodriguez in 2020, Lim, Peterson,

Bentley, Hu, and McLaren in (2022). This result contradicts the findings of Adams and Chen

(2021) and Minkyung and Boyoung (2023).

Similarly, the third hypothesis which states that conscientiousness will not significantly

predict employee well-being among SME employees in Owerri was accepted. The result

implies that conscientiousness does not significantly predict employee well-being among

SME employees in Owerri. However, this result is not in line with the findings of Witt,

Burke, Barrick and Mount (2022), Hazrati-Viari, Tayarani, and Torabi (2012), Eyong, Bassey,

and Umoh (2014), Olowookere, Adeboye, Adekeye, and Ayorinde (2017), Alda, Letizia, and

Labella (2014). This result supports the finding of Huo and Jiang (2021).

61
The fourth hypothesis which states that openness will not significantly predict employee

well-being among SME employees in Owerri was accepted. The result implies that openness

does not significantly predict employee well-being among SME employees in Owerri. This

result supports the findings of O'Connor & Paunonen (2007) and Hlatywayo, Mhlanga, and

Zingwe (2013). This result is not in line with the findings of Matzler and Renzl (2007), Tao

(2023) and Archibong (2015).

The fifth hypothesis which states that neuroticism will not significantly predict employee

well-being among SME employees in Owerri was also rejected. The result implies that

neuroticism do significantly predict employee well-being among SME employees in Owerri.

This result supports the findings of Anderson (2019) and Adams and Carter (2020). This

result is not in line with the findings of Schuller (2023).

The sixth hypothesis which states that stress levels will not significantly predict employee

well-being among SME employees in Owerri was rejected. The result implies that that stress

significantly and inversely predict wellbeing among SME Employees in Owerri. The result

implies that higher levels of stress significantly relate to reduced wellbeing scores among

SME Employees in Owerri. This result supports the findings of Johnson et al (2019),

Demerouti et al (2001) and Naseebullah et al (2023). This result is not in line with the

findings of Lazarus and Folkman (1984) and Thakur and Patha (2023).

Finally, the seventh hypothesis which states that coping strategies will not significantly

predict employee well-being among SME employees in Owerri was also rejected. The result

implies that higher coping strategies significantly relate to increased wellbeing scores among

SME Employees in Owerri. This result supports the findings of Chen et al. (2018) and

Turner (2020). This result is not in line with the findings of Schwarzer & Knoll (2007).

62
Implications of the Study

As seen in the result, stress level and coping strategies both significantly and inversely

influence employee well-being. The study suggests that both stress level and coping strategies

and other factors play a prominent role in influencing employee well-being among SME

employees in Owerri. This could prompt organizations to explore additional elements that

contribute to employee satisfaction and mental health, potentially leading to a more

comprehensive approach in fostering a positive work environment. Furthermore, personality

explains the differences among individuals and has a significant influence on employee well-

being. As shown in the results of the findings, only extroversion and neuroticism out of the 5

personality traits dimensions influenced employee well-being.

Limitations of the Study

The study lasted more than the estimated time because the researcher had to source for the

questionnaire that was used in carrying out the study. Another limitation is that only SME

employees in Owerri were used in the study. However, the researcher arrived one of the SME

companies late on the day he administered questionnaires; thus, some of the participants were

already exhausted physically and psychologically.

Suggestions for Further Studies

Potential researchers should try to delve into the distinctive factors shaping stress experiences

and coping dynamics among SME employees in Owerri, considering elements such as

organizational size, industry type, and local socioeconomic conditions. Comparative analyses

across different SME sectors, qualitative inquiries capturing employees' lived experiences,

and longitudinal studies tracking changes over time can provide a comprehensive

understanding of the intricate interplay between personality traits, stress, coping strategies,

and well-being in this regional setting.

63
Recommendation

1. Employees should engage in self-awareness training to understand their personality

traits and preferred coping strategies, enabling them to proactively manage stress and

enhance overall well-being.

2. Organizations can offer coping skills workshops tailored to different personality

types, equipping employees with a diverse set of strategies to effectively handle stress

in alignment with their individual characteristics.

3. Human resource professionals should integrate personality assessments into the

recruitment process to ensure a better fit between employees' traits and job roles.

4. Organizations should develop and implement inclusive workplace policies that

consider the diverse needs of employees based on their personality traits. This

involves creating policies related to workload distribution, communication styles, and

recognition programs tailored to individual preferences, fostering a supportive and

inclusive work environment that prioritizes employee well-being.

5. Researchers should conduct longitudinal studies to explore how the relationships

between personality traits, stress, and coping evolve over time, providing insights into

the long-term impact and effectiveness of coping strategies.

Conclusion

The research contributed to the existing body of literature by investigating the selected SME

companies in Owerri. The findings of the study confirmed seven null hypotheses. The first

null hypothesis which stated that extraversion will not significantly predict employee well-

being among SME employees in Owerri was rejected. The result indicates that extraversion

significantly predict employee well-being among SME employees in Owerri. The second

64
hypothesis which states that agreeableness will not significantly predict employee well-being

among SME employees in Owerri was accepted. The result implies that agreeableness does

not significantly predict employee well-being among SME employees in Owerri. The third

hypothesis which states that conscientiousness will not significantly predict employee well-

being among SME employees in Owerri was accepted. The result implies that

conscientiousness does not significantly predict well-being among SME employees in

Owerri. The fourth hypothesis which states that openness will not significantly predict

employee well-being among SME employees in Owerri was accepted. The result implies that

openness does not significantly predict employee well-being among SME employees in

Owerri. The fifth hypothesis which states that neuroticism will not significantly predict

employee well-being among SME employees in Owerri was rejected. The result implies that

neuroticism significantly predict well-being among SME employees in Owerri. The sixth

hypothesis which states that stress levels will not significantly predict employee well-being

among SME employees in Owerri was rejected. The result implies that stress levels

significantly predict employee well-being among SME employees in Owerri.

Finally, the seventh hypothesis which states that coping strategies will not significantly

predict employee well-being among SME employees in Owerri was also rejected, the result

implies that coping strategies significantly predicts employee well-being among SME

employees in Owerri.

65
 REFERENCES

Adams, & Chen. (2021). Implications of agreeableness on employee well-being in the

contemporary landscape of remote work.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job

performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26.

Chen, Wang, Li, & Liu. (2022). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on employees'

psychological well-being and performance in small- and medium-sized enterprises

(SMEs).

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and

NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Psychological

Assessment Resources.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-

resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499-512.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: A study of emotion

and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 48(1), 150-170.

Garland, E. L., Gaylord, S. A., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2011). Positive reappraisal mediates the

stress-reductive effects of mindfulness: An upward spiral process. Mindfulness, 2(1),

59-67.

Hlatywayo, Mhlanga, & Zingwe. (2013). Neuroticism and job satisfaction among bank

employees: An intricate exploration.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). 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.

66
Kang. (2023). The impact of employment status on personality traits: A study using data from

Understanding Society.

Langove et al. (2023). Integrating Sustainable Development Practices, Employee Well-being,

and Occupational Stress in corporate organizations.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. Springer Publishing

Company.

Lim, Peterson, Bentley, Hu, & McLaren. (2022). The relationship between personality traits

and team performance: A substantial contribution.

Maresca, Corallo, Catanese, Formica, & Buono. (2022). Coping Strategies of Healthcare

Professionals with Burnout Syndrome.

Nath, Rai, Bhatnagar, & Cooper. (2023). Coping strategies as mediators in the nexus between

job insecurity, subjective well-being, and presenteeism.

Naseebullah et al. (2023). Impact of Job Stressors on Employee Well-being and Turnover

Intentions.

Nika. (2023). The impact of psychological wellbeing on employee performance and

productivity.

O'Connor, M. C., & Paunonen, S. V. (2007). Big Five personality predictors of post-

secondary academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(5), 1-

990.

Schwarzer, R., & Knoll, N. (2007). Functional roles of social support within the stress and

coping process: A theoretical and empirical overview. International Journal of

Psychology, 42(4), 243-252.

Thompson & Anderson. (2019). The enduring influence of the Openness personality trait on

employee well-being

Zhao. (2023). The effect of personality traits on employees' annual salaries in Chinese

67
 Startups.

SECTION ONE

Personality Traits BFI

Sex : Male [ ] Female [ ] Age: .............................. Date:..........

Instruction: The following are statemenets people often use to describe themselves. Read
each statement carefully and indicate the extent to which it is true description of you as you
see yourself by shading only one of the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 in front of each statement.
Please note that there is no right or wrong answer to these questions.

The numbers stand for : 1 = Strongly Disagree

2 = Disagree
3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly Agree

I see myself as ................

A. 1. Someone who is outgoing and sociable ............... 1 2 3 4 5

2. Someone who is a talkative ............... 1 2 3 4 5
3. Someone who has an asserttive personality.......... 1 2 3 4 5
4. Someone who generates a lot of enthusiasm........... 1 2 3 4 5
5. Someone who is full of energy............... 1 2 3 4 5
6. Someone who is reserved ............... 1 2 3 4 5
7. Someone who is sometimes shy, inhibited............... 1 2 3 4 5
8. Someone who tends to be quiet............... 1 2 3 4 5
B. 9. Someone who is considerable and kind to almost everyone..... 1 2 3 4 5
10. Someone who likes to corporate with others ............... 1 2 3 4 5
11. Someone who is ohelpful and unselfish with others.......... 1 2 3 4 5
12. Someone who has a forgiving nature............... 1 2 3 4 5
13. Someone who is generally trusting............... 1 2 3 4 5
14. Someone who tends to find fault with others ............... 1 2 3 4 5
15. Someone who starts querrel with others............... 1 2 3 4 5
16. Someone who can be cold and aloof............... 1 2 3 4 5
17. Someone who is sometimes rude to others ............... 1 2 3 4 5

C. 18. Someone who does a thorough job ............... 1 2 3 4 5

19. Someone who does things efficiently ............... 1 2 3 4 5
20. Someone who makes plans, follows through with them..... 1 2 3 4 5
21. Someone who is a reliable worker ............... 1 2 3 4 5
22. Someone persevers until the task is finished ............ 1 2 3 4 5
23. Someone who is easily distracted ............... 1 2 3 4 5
24. Someone who can be somewhat careless ............... 1 2 3 4 5
25. Someone who tends to be disorganized ............... 1 2 3 4 5

68
 26. Someone who worries a lot ............... 1 2 3 4 5
D. 27. Someone who be tense ............... 1 2 3 4 5
28. Someone who gets nervous easily ............... 1 2 3 4 5
29. Someone who is depressed blue ............... 1 2 3 4 5
30. Someone who can be moody ............... 1 2 3 4 5
31. Someone who remains calm in ttense situations ........ 1 2 3 4 5
32. Someone who is emotionally stable, not easily upset ........ 1 2 3 4 5
33. Someone who is relaxed, handles stress well ............ 1 2 3 4 5
34. Someone who is inventive............... 1 2 3 4 5
E. 35. Someone who is original, comes up with new ideas.... 1 2 3 4 5
36. Someone who values artisstic, aethestic experiences... 1 2 3 4 5
37. Someone who has active imagination ............... 1 2 3 4 5
38. Someone who likes to reflect, play with ideas .......... 1 2 3 4 5
39. Someone who is sophissticated in art, music or literature..... 1 2 3 4 5
40. Someone who is ingenious, a deep thinker............. 1 2 3 4 5
41. Someone who prefers work that is routine............ 1 2 3 4 5
42. Someone who has few artistic interests ............... 1 2 3 4 5

SECTION TWO

Stress Levels Questionnaire:

Instruction: Read each statement carefully and indicate the extent to which it is true
description of your workplace stress level by ticking only one of the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 in
front of each statement. Please note that there is no right or wrong answer to these questions.

The numbers stand for : 1 = Strongly Disagree

2 = Disagree
3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly Agree

S/ Questions 1 2 3 4 5
N
1 My job requires working very fast
2 I have too many tasks to complete within a short time
frame
3 I do not have a say in the choice of methods used to
complete tasks.
4 I can’t decide the sequence of my tasks.
5 I rarely receive help and support from my colleagues
when needed
6 My supervisor isn’t willing to listen to my work-related
problems."

69
 SECTION THREE

Coping Strategies Questionnaire:

Please indicate how frequently you use the following strategies when faced with challenging
situations:

The numbers stand for : 1 = Never

2 = Rarely
3 = Sometimes
4 = Often
5 = Always

S/ Questions 1 2 3 4 5
N
1 I try to solve the problem causing my stress.
2 I seek information or advice to deal with the stressor.
3 I try to see the situation in a different, more positive way.
4 I engage in activities to distract myself from the stressor.
5 I try Denying that the problem exists or try to avoid it
altogether

SECTION FOUR

World Health Organization-Five Well-being Index (WHO-5) Questionnaire:

Please rate how each statement applied to you over the last two weeks.

0 = At no time
1 = Some of the time
2 = Less than half of the time
3 = More than half of the time
4 = Most of the time
5 = All of the time
S/ Questions 1 2 3 4 5
N
1 I have felt cheerful and in good spirits.
2 I have felt calm and relaxed.
3 I have felt active and vigorous.
4 I woke up feeling fresh and rested.
5 My daily life has been filled with things that interest me.

70
 APPENDICES
PARTICIPANTS RAW SCORE
S/N AGE GENDER BFI- BFI- BFI- BFI- BFI- STRESS COPING WELLBEING
E A C N O
1. 30 Female 22 27 26 27 26 10 20 18

2. 40 Female 21 24 29 21 33 6 15 21

3. 38 Female 21 32 32 28 35 17 19 23

4. 56 Female 19 25 21 26 33 9 13 17

5. 26 Male 21 27 25 22 27 11 22 25

6. 29 Female 19 31 26 26 21 12 23 21

7. 28 Female 24 27 29 16 26 10 20 19

8. 40 Male 24 29 25 28 23 23 7 10

9. 35 Female 21 20 33 26 34 6 12 20

10. 30 Male 30 28 30 35 29 11 18 20

11. 28 Female 31 27 23 23 31 15 9 11

12. 29 Male 25 18 29 25 29 8 13 22

13. 39 Female 28 27 27 29 24 10 23 18

14. 32 Male 28 21 20 24 26 11 20 13

15. 33 Female 25 28 29 20 31 8 22 21

16. 35 Male 22 30 19 18 31 8 14 24

17. 33 Female 15 30 18 29 25 11 13 18

18. 50 Male 25 29 30 25 32 23 6 11

19. 42 Female 22 30 28 33 29 7 17 19

20. 30 Female 29 25 29 24 32 9 21 20

21. 31 Female 19 26 27 22 29 11 20 22

22. 30 Male 22 21 25 26 27 9 14 17

23. 39 Female 25 24 31 28 24 10 21 18

71
24. 34 Male 21 27 28 25 29 6 13 18

25. 29 Male 22 24 28 21 29 14 10 9

26. 34 Male 24 23 27 22 26 9 24 21

27. 30 Female 23 27 25 25 30 9 20 15

28. 37 Female 29 24 24 23 39 8 16 18

29. 28 Female 21 27 24 17 22 25 10 11

30. 30 Female 24 26 30 29 21 10 19 23

31. 38 Female 20 24 32 19 24 9 19 25

32. 30 Male 20 26 26 24 36 17 8 5

33. 37 Female 24 26 21 30 29 11 18 21

34. 29 Male 24 27 32 26 34 27 11 10

35. 35 Female 20 27 29 31 32 6 12 18

36. 40 Female 25 26 23 25 26 10 24 21

37. 40 Female 28 28 27 28 32 7 19 20

38. 25 Male 26 33 24 26 25 7 13 17

39. 40 Female 26 27 35 21 34 11 23 23

40. 32 Female 24 27 26 26 30 6 18 14

41. 30 Male 23 27 20 18 35 8 23 22

42. 35 Female 22 26 28 21 30 20 10 8

43. 40 Female 32 27 33 27 33 9 13 17

44. 40 Male 30 27 25 28 39 11 24 21

45. 26 Female 19 27 24 28 35 7 14 22

46. 29 Male 23 27 26 24 28 7 22 17

47. 27 Female 29 20 27 23 31 9 22 19

48. 31 Female 21 22 26 21 33 29 9 7

49. 27 Female 24 20 18 26 20 10 23 17

50. 29 Male 35 25 25 27 31 8 21 18

51. 32 Female 22 38 28 20 22 8 20 21

52. 34 Female 28 13 40 37 42 10 19 19

53. 54 Male 36 13 32 37 12 21 11 5

72
54. 35 Male 26 13 38 40 34 26 5 9

55. 30 Female 26 15 33 31 39 11 12 18

56. 39 Male 27 40 27 29 31 23 7 6

57. 40 Male 40 13 22 31 28 8 14 22

58. 40 Male 31 40 18 35 36 18 10 3

59. 39 Female 24 41 24 31 27 13 9 11

60. 30 Female 23 45 31 30 47 24 5 7

61. 33 Male 30 20 37 35 28 10 13 24

62. 35 Female 20 40 35 26 13 8 24 17

63. 40 Female 40 27 28 39 27 22 10 5

64. 52 Female 28 23 32 38 26 7 17 21

65. 32 Female 23 14 37 32 35 15 11 11

66. 29 Male 38 27 22 35 45 24 9 11

67. 40 Female 24 16 34 25 48 14 7 10

68. 39 Male 37 19 30 37 32 18 9 6

69. 36 Female 22 19 19 24 28 21 8 4

70. 30 Male 27 30 24 40 39 22 10 7

71. 32 Male 27 25 40 29 16 15 9 11

72. 55 Male 26 30 30 32 27 22 11 6

73. 27 Male 27 22 40 30 35 28 7 9

74. 35 Male 22 45 35 34 40 12 7 10

75. 29 Male 35 27 26 23 44 23 10 5

76. 32 Female 32 25 36 35 49 28 9 10

77. 35 Female 28 19 28 37 30 16 9 10

78. 42 Female 22 29 20 32 43 23 5 6

79. 39 Female 29 25 28 31 40 17 8 8

80. 30 Male 34 43 29 28 25 17 9 5

81. 30 Female 33 37 21 26 41 19 11 10

82. 26 Male 40 14 24 26 34 21 10 11

73
83. 49 Female 21 10 12 40 38 11 17 20

84. 51 Male 24 25 25 32 41 25 10 10

85. 40 Female 20 31 23 35 34 17 11 5

86. 29 Male 31 28 28 37 40 28 5 3

87. 29 Female 36 43 26 39 25 16 6 4

88. 31 Female 23 13 19 32 28 19 11 5

89. 36 Male 37 40 33 25 24 10 19 18

90. 43 Male 21 31 33 30 30 28 7 9

91. 28 Male 25 30 19 22 22 11 22 19

92. 28 Male 26 32 20 30 34 21 7 11

93. 35 Female 39 14 32 31 26 15 11 10

94. 28 Female 24 45 31 25 40 19 8 3

95. 27 Male 30 27 35 28 44 11 14 21

96. 32 Female 33 28 28 30 35 18 5 4

97. 47 Male 23 33 23 24 37 27 5 9

98. 29 Female 33 41 29 25 18 6 22 18

99. 28 Male 26 12 35 27 34 9 24 23

100. 39 Female 34 20 32 23 42 8 12 18

101. 35 Female 33 26 29 23 31 14 6 10

102. 29 Female 30 41 33 29 47 22 11 7

103. 45 Female 31 33 40 34 29 7 18 19

104. 28 Male 28 45 12 28 45 11 23 22

105. 29 Female 34 38 32 17 40 9 13 17

106. 36 Female 26 37 25 30 22 8 19 13

107. 28 Female 22 42 29 24 24 17 9 5

108. 38 Female 29 42 31 36 42 20 8 8

109. 29 Male 32 22 25 38 39 15 7 11

110. 27 Female 32 18 25 23 37 6 17 18

111. 30 Female 21 22 24 33 19 26 8 4

112. 39 Female 26 42 30 30 45 19 10 5

74
113. 39 Female 23 12 22 19 34 13 5 3

114. 40 Male 38 28 33 31 35 23 11 3

115. 39 Female 22 39 35 40 36 7 21 20

116. 29 Female 40 31 21 20 26 13 10 10

117. 39 Male 37 28 30 39 22 25 10 9

118. 35 Female 40 36 25 29 43 20 10 9

119. 29 Female 20 27 34 34 35 15 7 11

120. 38 Female 22 45 19 28 22 18 9 5

121. 40 Male 26 38 25 24 45 13 9 10

122. 39 Male 33 13 34 30 28 9 20 20

123. 26 Male 34 27 34 22 23 23 11 3

124. 38 Female 22 26 40 31 29 7 21 19

125. 30 Female 35 27 30 32 41 11 23 14

126. 38 Male 25 14 37 37 33 8 17 17

127. 41 Female 28 20 29 33 19 6 24 22

128. 30 Female 28 13 28 30 50 28 10 8

129. 40 Male 22 37 40 28 32 26 5 11

130. 30 Female 28 28 22 31 31 17 10 5

131. 44 Male 24 29 24 40 38 9 19 17

132. 40 Female 25 22 22 20 40 11 19 13

133. 55 Female 21 32 39 39 35 21 8 6

134. 36 Male 38 39 37 21 46 10 18 17

135. 39 Male 18 41 40 40 36 10 13 18

136. 32 Male 35 16 31 39 48 18 6 5

137. 40 Female 30 24 37 21 20 6 24 20

138. 36 Female 26 13 32 24 28 22 9 11

139. 41 Male 22 38 32 33 29 11 13 18

140. 40 Female 22 37 28 20 32 24 7 5

141. 53 Female 24 18 37 26 39 7 15 17

75
142. 30 Female 32 22 30 16 22 28 11 9

143. 35 Male 26 37 21 13 34 21 9 10

144. 40 Female 30 21 25 17 30 7 23 20

145. 31 Male 26 26 40 13 19 22 10 7

146. 29 Male 26 12 28 37 24 18 7 11

147. 28 Female 39 24 20 27 24 10 12 19

148. 46 Male 31 31 36 21 29 11 21 20

149. 39 Female 32 34 22 24 47 19 9 11

150. 40 Male 21 19 32 26 32 11 24 19

151. 39 Male 35 23 30 32 41 8 21 20

152. 38 Female 18 27 40 26 23 21 6 8

153. 57 Male 38 26 41 20 37 13 10 11

154. 38 Female 25 39 34 12 28 7 23 20

155. 30 Male 21 13 40 37 48 20 6 7

156. 29 Male 31 18 25 29 34 25 5 11

157. 25 Female 34 22 28 18 39 9 18 21

158. 40 Female 37 20 24 24 27 28 9 4

159. 38 Female 34 14 30 31 33 15 11 10

160. 33 Female 24 26 22 37 36 11 20 13

161. 35 Male 39 22 32 33 43 20 6 6

162. 28 Male 33 30 21 28 38 17 10 9

163. 43 Male 29 24 32 22 26 11 15 18

164. 30 Female 20 23 35 18 21 20 8 5

165. 32 Female 27 22 37 34 42 11 20 21

166. 36 Male 25 26 40 28 44 23 6 3

167. 34 Female 35 22 40 40 32 21 10 3

168. 33 Female 23 30 24 27 42 8 21 18

169. 42 Female 23 24 29 33 44 11 12 21

170. 25 Female 28 23 30 29 39 11 22 17

171. 28 Male 18 22 23 35 35 9 13 19

76
172. 35 Female 21 27 40 17 17 11 19 13

173. 29 Female 20 19 25 13 31 10 20 19

174. 36 Female 32 21 31 13 26 8 22 17

175. 35 Male 35 24 34 22 40 10 21 20

176. 28 Female 33 35 22 20 42 7 13 14

177. 25 Female 25 27 31 25 46 19 8 7

178. 30 Male 26 19 28 19 46 21 8 10

179. 40 Female 26 21 39 23 34 14 6 11

180. 31 Male 29 24 16 16 33 12 11 5

181. 40 Female 20 24 38 12 45 9 22 19

182. 37 Female 37 28 32 22 45 10 24 17

183. 38 Male 23 28 32 24 43 9 12 20

184. 36 Male 20 27 40 16 34 15 7 4

185. 37 Female 38 18 14 31 25 23 9 11

186. 32 Male 22 20 37 18 20 18 10 9

187. 38 Male 20 25 25 26 48 13 10 8

188. 27 Female 29 29 31 34 45 7 18 13

189. 30 Female 20 20 31 40 25 9 20 17

190. 30 Female 40 13 27 21 28 15 9 11

191. 28 Female 19 28 33 32 43 9 18 18

192. 35 Female 20 27 19 28 32 10 17 20

193. 30 Male 23 27 34 13 29 15 7 9

194. 27 Male 24 34 26 13 47 16 8 10

195. 30 Female 20 25 37 13 48 7 21 20

196. 38 Male 21 32 27 15 45 10 14 18

197. 32 Female 25 24 25 40 36 25 11 4

198. 54 Male 23 31 26 13 32 10 12 22

199. 37 Male 39 20 19 30 33 14 10 11

200. 51 Male 32 18 20 26 28 11 24 19

77
 ANALYSES OF HYPOTHESES

Gender
Cumulative
Freqency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Female 116 58.0 58.0 58.0
Male 84 42.0 42.0 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0

Statistics
Age
N Valid 200
Missing 0
Mean 35.01
Median 35.00
Mode 30
Std. Deviation 6.765
Variance 45.764
Skewness 1.030
Std. Error of Skewness .172
Kurtosis 1.101

78
Std. Error of Kurtosis .342
Minimum 25
Maximum 57

Age
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 25 4 2.0 2.0 2.0
26 4 2.0 2.0 4.0
27 7 3.5 3.5 7.5
28 14 7.0 7.0 14.5
29 19 9.5 9.5 24.0
30 25 12.5 12.5 36.5
31 5 2.5 2.5 39.0
32 11 5.5 5.5 44.5
33 5 2.5 2.5 47.0
34 4 2.0 2.0 49.0
35 16 8.0 8.0 57.0
36 8 4.0 4.0 61.0
37 5 2.5 2.5 63.5
38 12 6.0 6.0 69.5
39 15 7.5 7.5 77.0
40 23 11.5 11.5 88.5
41 2 1.0 1.0 89.5
42 3 1.5 1.5 91.0
43 2 1.0 1.0 92.0
44 1 .5 .5 92.5
45 1 .5 .5 93.0
46 1 .5 .5 93.5
47 1 .5 .5 94.0
49 1 .5 .5 94.5
50 1 .5 .5 95.0
51 2 1.0 1.0 96.0
52 1 .5 .5 96.5
53 1 .5 .5 97.0
54 2 1.0 1.0 98.0
55 2 1.0 1.0 99.0
56 1 .5 .5 99.5

79
 57 1 .5 .5 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0

Correlations
Ge
Well_ A nde Extrav Agreeab Conscienti Neutot Open Str Cop
being ge r ersion leness ousness icism ness ess ing
Well_bein Pears
-.7
g on .0 -.07 * .77
1 -.171 -.097 .005 -.174 -.100 77*
*
Correl 34 5 * 6**
ation
Sig.
.6 .29 .00 .00
(2- .016 .172 .941 .014 .159
32 2 0 0
tailed)
N 20
200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
0
Age Pears
on .03 -.0 -.01
.034 1 -.027 -.006 .123 .123 -.039
Correl 7 15 1
ation
Sig.
.60 .83 .87
(2- .632 .703 .933 .083 .083 .587
4 5 8
tailed)
N 20
200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
0
Gender Pears
on .0 .16 -.17
-.075 1 .118 -.004 .030 .027 .057
Correl 37 8* 5*
ation
Sig.
.6 .01 .01
(2- .292 .095 .952 .673 .704 .421
04 7 3
tailed)
N 20
200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
0
Extraversi Pears
on on -.0 .11 .12 -.07
-.171* 1 -.105 -.045 .120 .072
Correl 27 8 9 7
ation
Sig. .016 .7 .09 .139 .529 .090 .310 .06 .27
(2- 03 5 9 6
tailed)

80
 N 20
200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
0
Agreeable Pears
ness on -.0 -.00 .02 -.04
-.097 -.105 1 -.051 -.071 .053
Correl 06 4 1 0
ation
Sig.
.9 .95 .77 .57
(2- .172 .139 .469 .321 .459
33 2 2 1
tailed)
N 20
200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
0
Conscienti Pears
ousness on .1 .03 .01 -.02
.005 -.045 -.051 1 .036 .039
Correl 23 0 1 8
ation
Sig.
.0 .67 .87 .69
(2- .941 .529 .469 .616 .588
83 3 2 1
tailed)
N 20
200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
0
Neutoticis Pears
m on .1 .02 .18 -.17
-.174* .120 -.071 .036 1 .096
Correl 23 7 0* 8*
ation
Sig.
.0 .70 .01 .01
(2- .014 .090 .321 .616 .176
83 4 1 2
tailed)
N 20
200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
0
Openness Pears
on -.0 .05 .10 -.19
-.100 .072 .053 .039 .096 1
Correl 39 7 2 1**
ation
Sig.
.5 .42 .15 .00
(2- .159 .310 .459 .588 .176
87 1 3 7
tailed)
N 20
200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
0
Stress Pears -.777** -.0 .16 .129 .021 .011 .180* .102 1 -.71
on 15 8* 7**
Correl
ation

81
 Sig.
.8 .01 .00
(2- .000 .069 .772 .872 .011 .153
35 7 0
tailed)
N 20
200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
0
Coping Pears
-.7
on ** -.0 -.17 * -.191
.776 -.077 -.040 -.028 -.178 17* 1
Correl 11 5* **
*
ation
Sig.
.8 .01 .00
(2- .000 .276 .571 .691 .012 .007
78 3 0
tailed)
N 20
200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
0
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Well_being 13.53 6.249 200
Extraversion 27.02 5.953 200
Agreeableness 26.48 7.924 200
Conscientiousness 28.69 6.242 200
Neutoticism 27.10 6.981 200
Openness 32.90 8.139 200
Stress 14.33 6.429 200
Coping 13.67 5.900 200

Model Summaryd
Std. Change Statistics
Error of R
R Adjusted the Square F Sig. F Durbin-
Model R Square R Square Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Watson
1 .271a .073 .049 6.093 .073 3.064 5 194 .011
b
2 .786 .617 .606 3.925 .544 274.538 1 193 .000
c
3 .846 .716 .706 3.390 .099 66.680 1 192 .000 1.965
a. Predictors: (Constant), Openness, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Neutoticism,
Extraversion
b. Predictors: (Constant), Openness, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Neutoticism,
Extraversion, Stress

82
c. Predictors: (Constant), Openness, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Neutoticism,
Extraversion, Stress, Coping
d. Dependent Variable: Well_being

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 568.746 5 113.749 3.064 .011b
Residual 7203.129 194 37.130
Total 7771.875 199
2 Regression 4798.417 6 799.736 51.909 .000c
Residual 2973.458 193 15.407
Total 7771.875 199
3 Regression 5564.883 7 794.983 69.161 .000d
Residual 2206.992 192 11.495
Total 7771.875 199
a. Dependent Variable: Well_being
b. Predictors: (Constant), Openness, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Neutoticism,
Extraversion
c. Predictors: (Constant), Openness, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Neutoticism,
Extraversion, Stress
d. Predictors: (Constant), Openness, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Neutoticism,
Extraversion, Stress, Coping

Coefficientsa
Standardiz
Unstandardiz ed
ed Coefficien Collinearity
Coefficients ts Correlations Statistics
Zero
-
Std. Sig orde Parti Toleran
Model B Error Beta t . r al Part ce VIF
1 (Constant) .00
26.096 3.913 6.669
0
Extraversion - .02 -.17 -.15 1.03
-.168 .074 -.160 -.161 .969
2.276 4 1 7 2
Agreeableness -.096 .055 -.121 - .08 -.09 -.124 -.12 .978 1.02
1.734 5 7 0 2

83
 Conscientiousn 9.247 .99 1.00
.069 .000 .001 .005 .000 .000 .992
ess E-5 9 8
Neutoticism - .02 -.17 -.15 1.02
-.141 .063 -.157 -.159 .973
2.244 6 4 5 8
Openness .33 -.10 -.06 1.01
-.051 .054 -.067 -.961 -.069 .981
8 0 6 9
2 (Constant) 11.49 .00
29.044 2.527
4 0
Extraversion - .09 -.17 -.07 1.04
-.081 .048 -.077 -.122 .957
1.702 0 1 6 5
Agreeableness - .04 -.09 -.09 1.02
-.072 .036 -.091 -.144 .976
2.017 5 7 0 4
Conscientiousn .86 1.00
.007 .045 .007 .167 .005 .012 .007 .991
ess 8 9
Neutoticism .45 -.17 -.03 1.05
-.031 .041 -.034 -.754 -.054 .947
2 4 4 6
Openness .82 -.10 -.01 1.02
-.008 .035 -.010 -.217 -.016 .975
9 0 0 5
Stress -
.00 -.77 -.73 1.05
-.736 .044 -.758 16.56 -.766 .948
0 7 8 5
9
3 (Constant) .00
16.012 2.704 5.922
0
Extraversion - .02 -.17 -.08 1.04
-.093 .041 -.088 -.160 .956
2.248 6 1 6 6
Agreeableness - .03 -.09 -.08 1.02
-.064 .031 -.081 -.149 .976
2.085 8 7 0 5
Conscientiousn .71 1.00
.014 .039 .014 .362 .005 .026 .014 .991
ess 8 9
Neutoticism .72 -.17 -.01 1.06
-.013 .035 -.014 -.354 -.026 .943
4 4 4 0
Openness .27 -.10 1.05
.033 .030 .043 1.096 .079 .042 .949
5 0 4
Stress - .00 -.77 -.30 2.10
-.424 .054 -.436 -.492 .476
7.830 0 7 1 1
Coping .00 2.13
.486 .060 .459 8.166 .776 .508 .314 .468
0 5
a. Dependent Variable: Well_being

84
 APPENDICES
PARTICIPANTS RAW SCORE
S/N AGE GENDER BFI- BFI- BFI- BFI- BFI- STRESS COPING WELLBEING
E A C N O
201. 30 Female 22 27 26 27 26 10 20 18

202. 40 Female 21 24 29 21 33 6 15 21

203. 38 Female 21 32 32 28 35 17 19 23

204. 56 Female 19 25 21 26 33 9 13 17

205. 26 Male 21 27 25 22 27 11 22 25

206. 29 Female 19 31 26 26 21 12 23 21

207. 28 Female 24 27 29 16 26 10 20 19

208. 40 Male 24 29 25 28 23 23 7 10

209. 35 Female 21 20 33 26 34 6 12 20

210. 30 Male 30 28 30 35 29 11 18 20

211. 28 Female 31 27 23 23 31 15 9 11

212. 29 Male 25 18 29 25 29 8 13 22

213. 39 Female 28 27 27 29 24 10 23 18

214. 32 Male 28 21 20 24 26 11 20 13

215. 33 Female 25 28 29 20 31 8 22 21

216. 35 Male 22 30 19 18 31 8 14 24

217. 33 Female 15 30 18 29 25 11 13 18

218. 50 Male 25 29 30 25 32 23 6 11

219. 42 Female 22 30 28 33 29 7 17 19

220. 30 Female 29 25 29 24 32 9 21 20

221. 31 Female 19 26 27 22 29 11 20 22

222. 30 Male 22 21 25 26 27 9 14 17

223. 39 Female 25 24 31 28 24 10 21 18

224. 34 Male 21 27 28 25 29 6 13 18

225. 29 Male 22 24 28 21 29 14 10 9

226. 34 Male 24 23 27 22 26 9 24 21

85
227. 30 Female 23 27 25 25 30 9 20 15

228. 37 Female 29 24 24 23 39 8 16 18

229. 28 Female 21 27 24 17 22 25 10 11

230. 30 Female 24 26 30 29 21 10 19 23

231. 38 Female 20 24 32 19 24 9 19 25

232. 30 Male 20 26 26 24 36 17 8 5

233. 37 Female 24 26 21 30 29 11 18 21

234. 29 Male 24 27 32 26 34 27 11 10

235. 35 Female 20 27 29 31 32 6 12 18

236. 40 Female 25 26 23 25 26 10 24 21

237. 40 Female 28 28 27 28 32 7 19 20

238. 25 Male 26 33 24 26 25 7 13 17

239. 40 Female 26 27 35 21 34 11 23 23

240. 32 Female 24 27 26 26 30 6 18 14

241. 30 Male 23 27 20 18 35 8 23 22

242. 35 Female 22 26 28 21 30 20 10 8

243. 40 Female 32 27 33 27 33 9 13 17

244. 40 Male 30 27 25 28 39 11 24 21

245. 26 Female 19 27 24 28 35 7 14 22

246. 29 Male 23 27 26 24 28 7 22 17

247. 27 Female 29 20 27 23 31 9 22 19

248. 31 Female 21 22 26 21 33 29 9 7

249. 27 Female 24 20 18 26 20 10 23 17

250. 29 Male 35 25 25 27 31 8 21 18

251. 32 Female 22 38 28 20 22 8 20 21

252. 34 Female 28 13 40 37 42 10 19 19

253. 54 Male 36 13 32 37 12 21 11 5

254. 35 Male 26 13 38 40 34 26 5 9

255. 30 Female 26 15 33 31 39 11 12 18

86
256. 39 Male 27 40 27 29 31 23 7 6

257. 40 Male 40 13 22 31 28 8 14 22

258. 40 Male 31 40 18 35 36 18 10 3

259. 39 Female 24 41 24 31 27 13 9 11

260. 30 Female 23 45 31 30 47 24 5 7

261. 33 Male 30 20 37 35 28 10 13 24

262. 35 Female 20 40 35 26 13 8 24 17

263. 40 Female 40 27 28 39 27 22 10 5

264. 52 Female 28 23 32 38 26 7 17 21

265. 32 Female 23 14 37 32 35 15 11 11

266. 29 Male 38 27 22 35 45 24 9 11

267. 40 Female 24 16 34 25 48 14 7 10

268. 39 Male 37 19 30 37 32 18 9 6

269. 36 Female 22 19 19 24 28 21 8 4

270. 30 Male 27 30 24 40 39 22 10 7

271. 32 Male 27 25 40 29 16 15 9 11

272. 55 Male 26 30 30 32 27 22 11 6

273. 27 Male 27 22 40 30 35 28 7 9

274. 35 Male 22 45 35 34 40 12 7 10

275. 29 Male 35 27 26 23 44 23 10 5

276. 32 Female 32 25 36 35 49 28 9 10

277. 35 Female 28 19 28 37 30 16 9 10

278. 42 Female 22 29 20 32 43 23 5 6

279. 39 Female 29 25 28 31 40 17 8 8

280. 30 Male 34 43 29 28 25 17 9 5

281. 30 Female 33 37 21 26 41 19 11 10

282. 26 Male 40 14 24 26 34 21 10 11

283. 49 Female 21 10 12 40 38 11 17 20

284. 51 Male 24 25 25 32 41 25 10 10

285. 40 Female 20 31 23 35 34 17 11 5

87
286. 29 Male 31 28 28 37 40 28 5 3

287. 29 Female 36 43 26 39 25 16 6 4

288. 31 Female 23 13 19 32 28 19 11 5

289. 36 Male 37 40 33 25 24 10 19 18

290. 43 Male 21 31 33 30 30 28 7 9

291. 28 Male 25 30 19 22 22 11 22 19

292. 28 Male 26 32 20 30 34 21 7 11

293. 35 Female 39 14 32 31 26 15 11 10

294. 28 Female 24 45 31 25 40 19 8 3

295. 27 Male 30 27 35 28 44 11 14 21

296. 32 Female 33 28 28 30 35 18 5 4

297. 47 Male 23 33 23 24 37 27 5 9

298. 29 Female 33 41 29 25 18 6 22 18

299. 28 Male 26 12 35 27 34 9 24 23

300. 39 Female 34 20 32 23 42 8 12 18

301. 35 Female 33 26 29 23 31 14 6 10

302. 29 Female 30 41 33 29 47 22 11 7

303. 45 Female 31 33 40 34 29 7 18 19

304. 28 Male 28 45 12 28 45 11 23 22

305. 29 Female 34 38 32 17 40 9 13 17

306. 36 Female 26 37 25 30 22 8 19 13

307. 28 Female 22 42 29 24 24 17 9 5

308. 38 Female 29 42 31 36 42 20 8 8

309. 29 Male 32 22 25 38 39 15 7 11

310. 27 Female 32 18 25 23 37 6 17 18

311. 30 Female 21 22 24 33 19 26 8 4

312. 39 Female 26 42 30 30 45 19 10 5

313. 39 Female 23 12 22 19 34 13 5 3

314. 40 Male 38 28 33 31 35 23 11 3

88
315. 39 Female 22 39 35 40 36 7 21 20

316. 29 Female 40 31 21 20 26 13 10 10

317. 39 Male 37 28 30 39 22 25 10 9

318. 35 Female 40 36 25 29 43 20 10 9

319. 29 Female 20 27 34 34 35 15 7 11

320. 38 Female 22 45 19 28 22 18 9 5

321. 40 Male 26 38 25 24 45 13 9 10

322. 39 Male 33 13 34 30 28 9 20 20

323. 26 Male 34 27 34 22 23 23 11 3

324. 38 Female 22 26 40 31 29 7 21 19

325. 30 Female 35 27 30 32 41 11 23 14

326. 38 Male 25 14 37 37 33 8 17 17

327. 41 Female 28 20 29 33 19 6 24 22

328. 30 Female 28 13 28 30 50 28 10 8

329. 40 Male 22 37 40 28 32 26 5 11

330. 30 Female 28 28 22 31 31 17 10 5

331. 44 Male 24 29 24 40 38 9 19 17

332. 40 Female 25 22 22 20 40 11 19 13

333. 55 Female 21 32 39 39 35 21 8 6

334. 36 Male 38 39 37 21 46 10 18 17

335. 39 Male 18 41 40 40 36 10 13 18

336. 32 Male 35 16 31 39 48 18 6 5

337. 40 Female 30 24 37 21 20 6 24 20

338. 36 Female 26 13 32 24 28 22 9 11

339. 41 Male 22 38 32 33 29 11 13 18

340. 40 Female 22 37 28 20 32 24 7 5

341. 53 Female 24 18 37 26 39 7 15 17

342. 30 Female 32 22 30 16 22 28 11 9

343. 35 Male 26 37 21 13 34 21 9 10

344. 40 Female 30 21 25 17 30 7 23 20

89
345. 31 Male 26 26 40 13 19 22 10 7

346. 29 Male 26 12 28 37 24 18 7 11

347. 28 Female 39 24 20 27 24 10 12 19

348. 46 Male 31 31 36 21 29 11 21 20

349. 39 Female 32 34 22 24 47 19 9 11

350. 40 Male 21 19 32 26 32 11 24 19

351. 39 Male 35 23 30 32 41 8 21 20

352. 38 Female 18 27 40 26 23 21 6 8

353. 57 Male 38 26 41 20 37 13 10 11

354. 38 Female 25 39 34 12 28 7 23 20

355. 30 Male 21 13 40 37 48 20 6 7

356. 29 Male 31 18 25 29 34 25 5 11

357. 25 Female 34 22 28 18 39 9 18 21

358. 40 Female 37 20 24 24 27 28 9 4

359. 38 Female 34 14 30 31 33 15 11 10

360. 33 Female 24 26 22 37 36 11 20 13

361. 35 Male 39 22 32 33 43 20 6 6

362. 28 Male 33 30 21 28 38 17 10 9

363. 43 Male 29 24 32 22 26 11 15 18

364. 30 Female 20 23 35 18 21 20 8 5

365. 32 Female 27 22 37 34 42 11 20 21

366. 36 Male 25 26 40 28 44 23 6 3

367. 34 Female 35 22 40 40 32 21 10 3

368. 33 Female 23 30 24 27 42 8 21 18

369. 42 Female 23 24 29 33 44 11 12 21

370. 25 Female 28 23 30 29 39 11 22 17

371. 28 Male 18 22 23 35 35 9 13 19

372. 35 Female 21 27 40 17 17 11 19 13

373. 29 Female 20 19 25 13 31 10 20 19

90
374. 36 Female 32 21 31 13 26 8 22 17

375. 35 Male 35 24 34 22 40 10 21 20

376. 28 Female 33 35 22 20 42 7 13 14

377. 25 Female 25 27 31 25 46 19 8 7

378. 30 Male 26 19 28 19 46 21 8 10

379. 40 Female 26 21 39 23 34 14 6 11

380. 31 Male 29 24 16 16 33 12 11 5

381. 40 Female 20 24 38 12 45 9 22 19

382. 37 Female 37 28 32 22 45 10 24 17

383. 38 Male 23 28 32 24 43 9 12 20

384. 36 Male 20 27 40 16 34 15 7 4

385. 37 Female 38 18 14 31 25 23 9 11

386. 32 Male 22 20 37 18 20 18 10 9

387. 38 Male 20 25 25 26 48 13 10 8

388. 27 Female 29 29 31 34 45 7 18 13

389. 30 Female 20 20 31 40 25 9 20 17

390. 30 Female 40 13 27 21 28 15 9 11

391. 28 Female 19 28 33 32 43 9 18 18

392. 35 Female 20 27 19 28 32 10 17 20

393. 30 Male 23 27 34 13 29 15 7 9

394. 27 Male 24 34 26 13 47 16 8 10

395. 30 Female 20 25 37 13 48 7 21 20

396. 38 Male 21 32 27 15 45 10 14 18

397. 32 Female 25 24 25 40 36 25 11 4

398. 54 Male 23 31 26 13 32 10 12 22

399. 37 Male 39 20 19 30 33 14 10 11

400. 51 Male 32 18 20 26 28 11 24 19

91
 ANALYSES OF HYPOTHESES

Gender
Cumulative
Freqency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Female 116 58.0 58.0 58.0
Male 84 42.0 42.0 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0

Statistics
Age
N Valid 200
Missing 0
Mean 35.01
Median 35.00
Mode 30
Std. Deviation 6.765
Variance 45.764
Skewness 1.030
Std. Error of Skewness .172
Kurtosis 1.101
Std. Error of Kurtosis .342
Minimum 25
Maximum 57

92
 Age
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 25 4 2.0 2.0 2.0
26 4 2.0 2.0 4.0
27 7 3.5 3.5 7.5
28 14 7.0 7.0 14.5
29 19 9.5 9.5 24.0
30 25 12.5 12.5 36.5
31 5 2.5 2.5 39.0
32 11 5.5 5.5 44.5
33 5 2.5 2.5 47.0
34 4 2.0 2.0 49.0
35 16 8.0 8.0 57.0
36 8 4.0 4.0 61.0
37 5 2.5 2.5 63.5
38 12 6.0 6.0 69.5
39 15 7.5 7.5 77.0
40 23 11.5 11.5 88.5
41 2 1.0 1.0 89.5
42 3 1.5 1.5 91.0
43 2 1.0 1.0 92.0
44 1 .5 .5 92.5
45 1 .5 .5 93.0
46 1 .5 .5 93.5
47 1 .5 .5 94.0
49 1 .5 .5 94.5
50 1 .5 .5 95.0
51 2 1.0 1.0 96.0
52 1 .5 .5 96.5
53 1 .5 .5 97.0
54 2 1.0 1.0 98.0
55 2 1.0 1.0 99.0
56 1 .5 .5 99.5
57 1 .5 .5 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0

Correlations

93
 Ge
Well_ A nde Extrav Agreeab Conscienti Neutot Open Str Cop
being ge r ersion leness ousness icism ness ess ing
Well_bein Pears
-.7
g on .0 -.07 * .77
1 -.171 -.097 .005 -.174 -.100 77*
*
Correl 34 5 * 6**
ation
Sig.
.6 .29 .00 .00
(2- .016 .172 .941 .014 .159
32 2 0 0
tailed)
N 20
200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
0
Age Pears
on .03 -.0 -.01
.034 1 -.027 -.006 .123 .123 -.039
Correl 7 15 1
ation
Sig.
.60 .83 .87
(2- .632 .703 .933 .083 .083 .587
4 5 8
tailed)
N 20
200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
0
Gender Pears
on .0 .16 -.17
-.075 1 .118 -.004 .030 .027 .057
Correl 37 8* 5*
ation
Sig.
.6 .01 .01
(2- .292 .095 .952 .673 .704 .421
04 7 3
tailed)
N 20
200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
0
Extraversi Pears
on on -.0 .11 .12 -.07
-.171* 1 -.105 -.045 .120 .072
Correl 27 8 9 7
ation
Sig.
.7 .09 .06 .27
(2- .016 .139 .529 .090 .310
03 5 9 6
tailed)
N 20
200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
0

94
Agreeable Pears
ness on -.0 -.00 .02 -.04
-.097 -.105 1 -.051 -.071 .053
Correl 06 4 1 0
ation
Sig.
.9 .95 .77 .57
(2- .172 .139 .469 .321 .459
33 2 2 1
tailed)
N 20
200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
0
Conscienti Pears
ousness on .1 .03 .01 -.02
.005 -.045 -.051 1 .036 .039
Correl 23 0 1 8
ation
Sig.
.0 .67 .87 .69
(2- .941 .529 .469 .616 .588
83 3 2 1
tailed)
N 20
200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
0
Neutoticis Pears
m on .1 .02 .18 -.17
-.174* .120 -.071 .036 1 .096
Correl 23 7 0* 8*
ation
Sig.
.0 .70 .01 .01
(2- .014 .090 .321 .616 .176
83 4 1 2
tailed)
N 20
200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
0
Openness Pears
on -.0 .05 .10 -.19
-.100 .072 .053 .039 .096 1
Correl 39 7 2 1**
ation
Sig.
.5 .42 .15 .00
(2- .159 .310 .459 .588 .176
87 1 3 7
tailed)
N 20
200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
0
Stress Pears -.777** -.0 .16 .129 .021 .011 .180* .102 1 -.71
on 15 8* 7**
Correl
ation

95
 Sig.
.8 .01 .00
(2- .000 .069 .772 .872 .011 .153
35 7 0
tailed)
N 20
200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
0
Coping Pears
-.7
on ** -.0 -.17 * -.191
.776 -.077 -.040 -.028 -.178 17* 1
Correl 11 5* **
*
ation
Sig.
.8 .01 .00
(2- .000 .276 .571 .691 .012 .007
78 3 0
tailed)
N 20
200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
0
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Well_being 13.53 6.249 200
Extraversion 27.02 5.953 200
Agreeableness 26.48 7.924 200
Conscientiousness 28.69 6.242 200
Neutoticism 27.10 6.981 200
Openness 32.90 8.139 200
Stress 14.33 6.429 200
Coping 13.67 5.900 200

Model Summaryd
Std. Change Statistics
Error of R
R Adjusted the Square F Sig. F Durbin-
Model R Square R Square Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Watson
1 .271a .073 .049 6.093 .073 3.064 5 194 .011
b
2 .786 .617 .606 3.925 .544 274.538 1 193 .000
c
3 .846 .716 .706 3.390 .099 66.680 1 192 .000 1.965
a. Predictors: (Constant), Openness, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Neutoticism,
Extraversion

96
b. Predictors: (Constant), Openness, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Neutoticism,
Extraversion, Stress
c. Predictors: (Constant), Openness, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Neutoticism,
Extraversion, Stress, Coping
d. Dependent Variable: Well_being

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 568.746 5 113.749 3.064 .011b
Residual 7203.129 194 37.130
Total 7771.875 199
2 Regression 4798.417 6 799.736 51.909 .000c
Residual 2973.458 193 15.407
Total 7771.875 199
3 Regression 5564.883 7 794.983 69.161 .000d
Residual 2206.992 192 11.495
Total 7771.875 199
a. Dependent Variable: Well_being
b. Predictors: (Constant), Openness, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Neutoticism,
Extraversion
c. Predictors: (Constant), Openness, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Neutoticism,
Extraversion, Stress
d. Predictors: (Constant), Openness, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Neutoticism,
Extraversion, Stress, Coping

Coefficientsa
Standardiz
Unstandardiz ed
ed Coefficien Collinearity
Coefficients ts Correlations Statistics
Zero
-
Std. Sig orde Parti Toleran
Model B Error Beta t . r al Part ce VIF
1 (Constant) .00
26.096 3.913 6.669
0
Extraversion -.168 .074 -.160 - .02 -.17 -.161 -.15 .969 1.03
2.276 4 1 7 2

97
 Agreeableness - .08 -.09 -.12 1.02
-.096 .055 -.121 -.124 .978
1.734 5 7 0 2
Conscientiousn 9.247 .99 1.00
.069 .000 .001 .005 .000 .000 .992
ess E-5 9 8
Neutoticism - .02 -.17 -.15 1.02
-.141 .063 -.157 -.159 .973
2.244 6 4 5 8
Openness .33 -.10 -.06 1.01
-.051 .054 -.067 -.961 -.069 .981
8 0 6 9
2 (Constant) 11.49 .00
29.044 2.527
4 0
Extraversion - .09 -.17 -.07 1.04
-.081 .048 -.077 -.122 .957
1.702 0 1 6 5
Agreeableness - .04 -.09 -.09 1.02
-.072 .036 -.091 -.144 .976
2.017 5 7 0 4
Conscientiousn .86 1.00
.007 .045 .007 .167 .005 .012 .007 .991
ess 8 9
Neutoticism .45 -.17 -.03 1.05
-.031 .041 -.034 -.754 -.054 .947
2 4 4 6
Openness .82 -.10 -.01 1.02
-.008 .035 -.010 -.217 -.016 .975
9 0 0 5
Stress -
.00 -.77 -.73 1.05
-.736 .044 -.758 16.56 -.766 .948
0 7 8 5
9
3 (Constant) .00
16.012 2.704 5.922
0
Extraversion - .02 -.17 -.08 1.04
-.093 .041 -.088 -.160 .956
2.248 6 1 6 6
Agreeableness - .03 -.09 -.08 1.02
-.064 .031 -.081 -.149 .976
2.085 8 7 0 5
Conscientiousn .71 1.00
.014 .039 .014 .362 .005 .026 .014 .991
ess 8 9
Neutoticism .72 -.17 -.01 1.06
-.013 .035 -.014 -.354 -.026 .943
4 4 4 0
Openness .27 -.10 1.05
.033 .030 .043 1.096 .079 .042 .949
5 0 4
Stress - .00 -.77 -.30 2.10
-.424 .054 -.436 -.492 .476
7.830 0 7 1 1
Coping .00 2.13
.486 .060 .459 8.166 .776 .508 .314 .468
0 5
a. Dependent Variable: Well_being

98
99