Article body

Research Context

Demographic and sociological changes present employers with a major challenge when attracting employees. Since salaries and fringe benefits can be indistinguishable from one firm to the next (Gerhart and Rynes, 2003), employers must increasingly rely on the more intangible components of “total rewards” (e.g., opportunities for advancement, work-family balance, etc.). Such a trend is consistent with a growing number of employers seeking to deploy a “total rewards” strategy (e.g., Long, 2006; Milkovich, Newman, and Cole, 2005; St-Onge and Thériault, 2006). We use the notion of reward, rather than compensation, since the former is broader and encompasses “everything provided by the company, which satisfies an employee’s needs” (Long, 2006: 6). A survey conducted by Mercer Corporation (2007) shows that 55% of all participating North-American employers adopt a “broad” definition of compensation, including indirect pay, fringe benefits, professional advancement and other intrinsic compensations. Similarly, while potential employees tend to give preference to employment offers which propose the highest salaries, they nevertheless consider other factors when making their choices; these include fringe benefits, variable pay, promotion opportunities, etc. (Barber and Roehling, 1993; Bretz and Judge, 1994; Cable and Judge, 1994).

Research Objective and Contributions

Research Objective

Based on individual dispositions and considerations, this research innovates by exploring the links between individuals’ personalities and the attraction of various total rewards components. Specifically, this research seeks to answer the following question: How do individuals’ personality traits determine the relative importance of various total rewards components when they make employment choices?

According to the individual dispositions perspective, people are predisposed to perceive and assess their environments in a somewhat constructive manner, and to act accordingly (Weiss and Adler, 1984). Personal dispositions are natural tendencies that colour most of an individual’s behaviours and attitudes. According to Bell and Staw (1989), the effects of personal dispositions are more likely to be confirmed in situations where people enjoy a certain degree of latitude in their decisions and behaviours, which seems to be the case when applying for a job and joining an organization. With respect to hiring, the “Attraction/Selection/Attrition” model (Schneider, 1987; Schneider, Goldstein, and Smith, 1995) suggests that candidates will prefer to join organizations and take up positions they believe match their personal characteristics.

Despite the important role of total rewards components in attracting candidates, it appears that no study has examined the impact of personality traits on the perceived attractiveness of such components. However, several authors express the need to better understand individual differences with respect to total rewards components to help employers attract and retain employees whose personalities and values are consistent with the culture of their employers (e.g., Bartol, 1999; Gerhart and Rynes, 2003; Milkovich, Newman, and Cole, 2005). While knowledge on staff selection (how and who to choose among the pool of candidates attracted) has evolved significantly, such is not the case concerning staff attraction (how to attract the best candidates) (Barber and Bretz, 2000).

If the theory of individual dispositions is applied to the attraction potential of a job, it presumes that different people ascribe different levels of importance to various components of compensation, based on their specific personality traits (Gerhart and Rynes, 2003). Several authors express the need to carry out analyses of how personality traits affect employment characteristics preferences (Barber and Bretz, 2000; Schneider, 1987; Schneider, Goldstein, and Smith, 1995). Consistent with this perspective, our study considers candidates’ viewpoints rather than those of organizations (e.g., Bretz, Ash, and Dreher, 1989; Cable and Judge, 1994; Judge and Cable, 1997; Turban and Keon, 1993). More specifically, our study seeks to provide more information on how various compensation components may facilitate or impede the attraction of people with specific personality traits.

This research is also innovative in terms of methodology. In fact, we analyze real job choices made by people who are active in the labour market, as recommended by several authors (e.g., Barber, 1998; Lawler, 1971; Lievens et al., 2001; Rynes, 1991; Ziegert and Ehrhart, 2004). Most prior research considers the attraction phenomenon among samples of students with little or no work experience (e.g., Aiman-Smith, Bauer, and Cable, 2001; Bretz, Ash, and Dreher, 1989; Bretz and Judge, 1994; Cable and Judge, 1994; Lievens et al., 2001; Trank, Rynes, and Bretz, 2002). In addition, job attractiveness is often assessed by asking participants to talk about a series of job descriptions and/or fictitious organizations (e.g., Cable and Judge, 1994; Feldman and Arnold, 1978; Rynes, Schwab, and Heneman, 1983; Zedeck, 1977).

This method, named policy capturing, has various limitations: decision making remains abstract because the choices or preferences have no real effects on the lives of respondents (Rynes, 1991; Schneider, Goldstein, and Smith, 1995); the scenarios considered are not as complete as those taken into account in reality (Turban and Keon, 1993); the participants must assess a large number of opportunities within a limited timeframe, which does not match the reality of a job seeker (Barber, 1998), and finally, a decision may be made to accept a job offer even though the job may not be the individual’s first choice (Bretz, Ash, and Dreher, 1989). Furthermore, respondents are often asked to assess and categorize various compensation components or to ascribe each of them a relative weight based on the prominence they give to a component when choosing a job or an organization (Barber, 1998; Gerhart et Rynes, 2003). This method also has its limitations: a respondent must make decisions that are arbitrary and without a proper context (Barber, 1998; Gerhart and Rynes, 2003), and what he/she categorizes as the preferred choice among various compensation components is not necessarily consistent with his “real” employment decisions or choices (Barber, 1998; Rynes, 1991; Rynes, Schwab, and Heneman, 1983; Schwab, Rynes, and Aldag, 1987; Turban, Eyring, and Campion, 1993). Finally, to date, the very limited number of researchers who have actually investigated the links between personality and employment characteristics have only considered one or two personality traits and/or only one or two compensation components (often, variable pay or salary). Our study is more exhaustive as it explores the relative effect of several personality traits, based on a thoroughly validated model, the Big Five model, on the attractiveness of several total rewards components.

Review of the Literature

This section summarizes prior research that examines the links between personality traits and the attractiveness of various total rewards components. Given how little has been written on the matter and the exploratory and forward-looking character of this research, we are not presenting any hypotheses.

Prominence afforded to variable pay and rewards: Some authors hold that responsiveness to compensation is a central component of extraversion: extroverts would be more attracted to compensations (Gray, 1973; Lucas and Diener, 2001) since they are more risk tolerant (Lindley and Borgen, 2000). Similarly, they would be more motivated to engage in social interactions because they find them gratifying (Lucas et al., 2000). In a coherent fashion, Stewart (1996) establishes that extroverts give special weight to compensated performance indicators. Finally, the study by Cable and Judge (1994) reveals that (a) the more individualistic people are and the greater their sense of self-efficacy, the greater the prominence they ascribe to individualized remuneration; (b) the lesser people’s sense of self-efficacy and the more risks they can tolerate, the greater the prominence they ascribe to jobs with fixed remuneration (not related to performance); and (c) the more neurotic people are, the less likely they are to take risks, and the greater the prominence they ascribe to fixed remuneration, since they have a lower sense of self-efficacy (Judge and Bono, 2001).

Prominence afforded to salary: The study by Cable and Judge (1994) reveals that the more materialistic people are, the greater the prominence they attribute to salary.

Prominence afforded to development and career opportunities: Studies have shown that the more conscientious people are, the more they seek out learning opportunities (Colquitt and Simmering, 1998) and the more motivated they are to learn (see the meta-analysis by Colquitt, Lepine, and Noe, 2000). Furthermore, since openness to experience is the hallmark of persons seeking new challenges, flexibility and creativity (James and Mazerolle, 2002), people open to experience are probably likely to seek development and promotion opportunities (Barrick and Mount, 1991).

Prominence afforded to quality of relationships: According to some authors, the more conscientious people are, the greater the importance they attach to seeking a work environment characterized by good social relationships and cooperation (Goldberg, 1992; Mount and Barrick, 1995; Piedmont, 1998; Stewart and Barrick, 2004). According to other authors, extraversion and agreeableness apparently have a positive impact on the importance attached to cooperation (Lindley and Borgen, 2000) and a negative impact on a culture of competition (Berings, de Fruyt, and Bouwen, 2004). From an empirical perspective, Judge and Cable (1997) establish that extroverts attach more importance to a team-oriented culture and less importance to an aggressive culture.

Prominence afforded to challenges: Given that emotionally unstable persons lack self-confidence (Barrick, Mount, and Gupta, 2003), they would be less driven to seek challenges (Stewart and Barrick, 2004) and to carry out challenging or demanding tasks, because such endeavours carry some risk of failure (Barrick, Mount, and Gupta, 2003; James and Mazerolle, 2002).

Methodology

Sample and Procedure

An online survey was conducted in May and June 2006 among a random sample comprising 2,945 subjects, or 50% of the members of the Ordre des conseillers en ressources humaines et en relations industrielles agréés du Québec (Association of Human Resource Management Professionals of the Province of Québec). Attached to this mailing was an invitation to participate signed by the president of the ORHRI. During the three weeks following our first appeal, we twice sent reminders to non-respondents. In total, 967 respondents completed the questionnaire, representing a 33% response rate. However, 49 responses were rejected, as they were incomplete. Table 1 shows the demographic make-up of our sample.

Table 1

Demographic Characteristics of Study Respondents

Characteristics

Percentage

Gender:

 

     Female

64.1%

Age:

 

     Under 25 years old

2.4%

     25–29 years old

17.8 %

     30–34 years old

17.9%

     35–39 years old

17.0%

     40–44 years old

13.0%

     45–49 years old

14.8%

     50–54 years old

10.2%

     55 years or older

6.5%

     Not reported

0.4%

Number of dependants:

 

     None

44.8%

     One

19.9%

     Two

21.5%

     Three

6.6%

     Four

2.7%

     More than four

3.2%

     Not reported

1.3%

Academic attainment:

 

     Secondary

0.8%

     College

1.2%

     Certificate

7.8%

     Bachelor’s

68.1%

     Master’s

21.1%

     Doctorate

0.5%

     Not reported

0.5%

Work experience:

 

     Less than one year

0.2%

     1–2 years

2.8%

     3–5 years

12.2%

     6–9 years

16.7%

     10–14 years

15.6%

     15–19 years

14.1%

     20–24 years

11.7%

     25–29 years

12.1%

     30 years or longer

12.5%

     Not reported

2.1%

Organizational seniority:

 

     Less than one year

15.5%

     1–2 years

23.5%

     3–5 years

27.9%

     6–9 years

14.2%

     10–14 years

6.0%

     15–19 years

3.7%

     20–24 years

3.9%

     25–29 years

2.5%

     30 years or longer

1.4%

     Not reported

1.4%

Annual salary:

 

     Less than $30,000

0.5%

     $30,000–$39,999

7.0%

     $40,000–$49,999

12.4%

     $50,000–$59,999

14.2%

     $60,000–$69,999

16.9%

     $70,000–$79,999

16.8%

     $80,000–$89,999

11.0%

     $90,000–$99,999

18.0%

     $100,000 and above

0,5%

     Not reported

2.7%

Organization size:

 

     Less than 50 employees

12.2%

     50–99 employees

6.0%

     100–499 employees

31.6%

     500–999 employees

13.0%

     Over 1,000 employees

36.8%

     Not reported

0.4%

-> See the list of tables

Measurement of Variables

Total Rewards Components

Several authors provide lists of total rewards components (e.g., Milkovich, Newman, and Cole, 2005; St-Onge and Thériault, 2006). For example, St-Onge and Thériault (2006) distinguish between extrinsic recognition and intrinsic recognition. The first category is sub-divided into direct compensation—paid in cash to employees (salaries, bonuses and allowances, variable pay)—and indirect pay, which involves all the other non-cash components (fringe benefits and time off, ancillary benefits and working conditions, such as career and training opportunities). Intrinsic recognition encompasses autonomy, a sense of accomplishment, of security and self-esteem, respect for hierarchy or for co-workers and the opportunity to do exciting and varied work. Similarly, Milkovich, Newman, and Cole (2005) also suggest that total rewards include (a) direct compensation, which includes basic salary, merit wage, financial incentives and cost-of-living adjustments, (b) indirect pay, which includes insurance and pension plans, paid time off and other packages offered by the employer, and (c) a gamut of more intrinsic factors such as work environment, challenges, social interactions, work significance, promotions and job security, etc.

This study attempts to identify the major aspects of total rewards through a factorial analysis of statements aimed at measuring the attraction of 30 rewards components drawn from Milkovich, Newman, and Cole (2005) and St-Onge and Thériault (2006). Respondents were asked the following question: “To what extent did the following factors influence your decision to work for your current employer?” Responses were provided on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very strongly). The 30 reward components harness the various components comprising the three major types of compensations: (1) direct compensation: attraction bonuses, salary, variable pay based on individual performance, variable pay based on organizational performance; (2) indirect pay: fringe benefits and time off, flexibility of working conditions, job security; (3) psychological recognition (or intrinsic recognition): development opportunities, career opportunities, quality of social relationships, authority and control, autonomy, feedback and recognition, the relevance of the job to others, the relevance of the job to the person, work load, and work variety.

We conducted a principal components analysis using a varimax rotation of the 30 reward component statements to derive primary reward components (see Table 2). The analysis allowed us to extract 8 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, which, together, account for 74% of the total variance. As Table 2 illustrates, all the items show a main loading greater than .40 and very low cross-loadings. The internal consistency of each of the factors surpasses the .70 threshold:

  • Factor 1 relates to quality of work and of social relationships and includes eight items relating to social relationships and several intrinsic rewards: autonomy, relationships with superior, senior management and colleagues, work variety, work relevance, authority and supervision, feedback and recognition.

  • Factor 2 relates to variable pay since it involves items such as stock awards, stock options, collective variable pay, performance bonuses, attraction bonuses and merit-based salary raises.

  • Factor 3 relates to indirect pay and includes pension plans, insurance, salaries, paid time off (vacations) and job security.

  • Factor 4 refers to development and career opportunities and involves two items: development and career.

  • Factor 5, flexibility of working conditions, involves two items: a flexible workplace and flexible work schedules.

  • Factor 6, workprestige, involves two items: the status of employees and the importance of their job to others.

  • Factor 7, described as bonuses, involves two items: one relating to services and the other to bonuses.

  • Factor 8 involves only one item, work load, which we retain for investigative purposes.

Table 2

Results of the Principal Components Analysis of Job Attractiveness Items (Varimax Rotation)

 

Eight total rewards factors or facets

30 elements

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Autonomy

.81

.11

.00

.10

.19

.01

‑.10

‑.01

Relationship with superior

.81

.06

.25

.12

.01

.04

.17

.11

Relationship with management

.78

.02

.03

.20

.04

.15

.25

.16

Relationship with colleagues

.77

.05

.15

.04

‑.01

.10

.38

.09

Job variety

.73

.00

.03

.27

.05

.13

‑.18

.14

Importance of work

.67

‑.04

.26

.06

.14

.25

‑.09

‑.19

Authority/control

.63

.24

‑.07

.26

.10

.08

‑.17

‑.09

Feedback

.55

.18

.24

.20

.15

.28

.26

.22

Stock awards

.02

.94

.10

.05

.10

.12

.13

‑.06

Stock options

.03

.94

.09

.03

.13

.13

.15

‑.05

Share purchases

.03

.93

.12

.05

.07

.12

.13

‑.07

Variable pay based on organizational performance

.21

.67

‑.01

.04

.07

‑.13

.01

.35

Bonuses/incentives

.22

.62

.34

.34

.14

‑.16

‑.02

.25

Attraction bonuses

‑.01

.51

‑.09

.20

.13

.17

.09

.50

Merit pay

.20

.43

.39

.37

.07

‑.06

‑.05

.37

Retirement plan

.08

.11

.81

.02

.16

‑.01

.22

‑.11

Insurance

.21

‑.09

.77

.11

.03

.04

.37

.06

Fixed compensation/salary

.13

.23

.62

.17

‑.11

.26

‑.24

.33

Non‑worked paid time

‑.00

.14

.59

.05

.13

.08

.24

.41

Employment security

.22

‑.06

.51

.09

.27

.37

.04

‑.09

Promotion

.23

.13

.07

.81

.10

.13

.11

‑.01

Transfers

.25

.03

.07

.79

.02

.09

.02

.00

Development

.27

.14

.14

.64

.28

.18

.16

.03

Workplace flexibility

.16

.23

.08

.17

.86

.11

.11

.06

Schedule flexibility

.16

.19

.20

.13

.84

.09

.11

.17

Status of employment

.16

.13

.06

.22

.05

.81

.10

.07

Importance of the work for others

.35

.08

.14

.07

.14

.79

.03

.11

Services offered

.07

.24

.29

.09

.13

.09

.79

.03

Bonuses

.05

.29

.33

.21

.20

.08

.61

.24

Workload

.26

‑.11

.24

‑.23

.27

.18

.20

.57

Eigen value

4.88

4.4

3.12

2.49

1.97

1.92

1.84

1.47

% of explained variance

16.27

14.67

10.40

8.30

6.56

6.41

6.20

4.89

-> See the list of tables

Big Five Personality Traits

Prior research has used the Big Five model as a standard for predicting not only attitudes or behaviours, but also work performance (Barrick and Mount, 1991; Barrick, Stewart, and Piotrowski, 2002; Judge, Heller, and Mount, 2002; Judge and Ilies, 2002; Judge, LePine, and Rich, 2006; Mount et al., 2005). The model allows to describe personality according to 5 basic traits: conscientiousness (as opposed to intuition), extraversion (as opposed to introversion), agreeableness (as opposed to competition), emotional stability (as opposed to neuroticism) and openness to experience or open-mindedness (as opposed to conservatism):

  • Conscientiousness is the extent to which an individual organizes himself, persists and demonstrates his motivation to adopt behaviours in order to achieve specific goals. Conscientious or meticulous people are often described as cautious, elaborate, methodical, responsible, organized, efficient, orderly, ambitious, unrelenting, dependable, determined achievers and successful (Goldberg, 1992; James and Mazerolle, 2002; Mount and Barrick, 1995; Piedmont, 1998; Spangler, House, and Palrecha, 2004).

  • Extraversion refers to the need for social relationships. Extroverts are described as sociable, outgoing, confident, spontaneous, adventurous, dynamic, friendly, lively, impulsive, ambitious and imaginative (Goldberg, 1992; James and Mazerolle, 2002; Mount and Barrick, 1995; Piedmont, 1998).

  • Agreeableness (or agreeability) measures the extent to which an individual likes being in the company of others. An individual who is highly agreeable is described as polite, flexible, confident, tolerant, cooperative, empathic, generous, affectionate, benevolent, malleable, easy-going and selfless (Goldberg, 1992; James and Mazerolle, 2002; Mount and Barrick, 1995; Piedmont, 1998).

  • Emotional stability is the opposite of neuroticism, which is a characteristic of anxious, depressive, emotional, nervous, fearful persons with frequent mood swings (Goldberg, 1992; James and Mazerolle, 2002; Mount and Barrick, 1995; Piedmont, 1998; Spangler, House, and Palrecha, 2004).

  • Openness to experience refers to a proactive search for experience and to openness to new ideas (Piedmont, 1998). People who are open to experience are imaginative, curious, innovative, independent, free, autonomous, and with a vivid imagination (Goldberg, 1992; James and Mazerolle, 2002; Mount and Barrick, 1995; Piedmont, 1998; Spangler, House, and Palrecha, 2004).

We used the Big Five Inventory (BFI) developed by John, Donahue and Kentle (1991), and validated by Ntalianis (2006). However, as our respondents were francophones, we relied on a French version of the BFI, which was translated by professionals using a translation and back-translation procedure (see Behling and Law, 2000). The 44-item scale comprises: 8 items for extraversion, 9 for agreeableness, 9 for conscientiousness, 8 for neuroticism and 10 items for openness to experience. The items are answered on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In U.S. and Canadian samples, BFI scales obtained internal consistency coefficients ranging from 0.75 to 0.90, with an average 0.80 (Benet-Martinez and John, 1998; John and Srivastava, 1999). These results, and ours, presented hereunder, are consistent with those obtained with another French translation of the BFI (see Plaisant et al., 2005).

A confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the BFI items’ structure through LISREL 8.72, since the structure of the scale was known a priori. We used a variance/covariance matrix for this analysis and relied on the maximum likelihood method of estimation. In addition to the χ2, the suitability of the model was measured using the non-normed fit index and the comparative fit index (Bentler, 1990) as measures of incremental fit, the root mean square residual as a measure of absolute fit, and the root mean square error of approximation as a measure of relative fit. It should be noted that given the complexity of the model under evaluation (44 items), we combined the items to create three aggregated indicators for each dimension (see Landis, Beal, and Tesluk, 2000). A confirmatory factor analysis of the items resulted in a reasonably good adjustment to the data, χ2(80) = 478.12, p = .01, NNFI = .88, CFI = .89, RMR = .04, RMSEA = .08. Furthermore, this model had an adjustment that was statistically superior to that of any more parsimonious model containing three or four factors for representing the data. The latent correlations among factors were low to moderate (ranging from –.42 to .37). These results suggest that the Big-Five 5-factor model was the best model.

Control Variables

We controlled for the effect of eight variables likely to influence the preference given to compensation components, including age (Bretz and Judge, 1994; Jurgensen, 1978; Lacy, Bokemeier, and Shepard, 1983; Zedeck, 1977), gender (Jurgensen, 1978; Konrad et al., 2000), work experience (Bretz and Judge, 1994; Feldman and Arnold, 1978; Zedeck, 1977), level of education (Jurgensen, 1978; Lacy, Bokemeier, and Shepard, 1983), organization size (Posner, 1981; Turban and Keon, 1993), salary, number of dependants, and organizational tenure (Lacy, Bokemeier, and Shepard, 1983).

Results and Discussion

We examined the links between personality traits and the eight total rewards factors using correlation analysis (Table 3) and multiple hierarchical regression analyses which introduced control variables (Step 1) and subsequently, personality traits (Step 2) (see Table 4).

Personality and the Prominence Afforded to Quality of Work/Relationships

The prominence given to quality of work and of relationships is correlated with the five personality traits, that is, extraversion (r = .23, p < .01), openness to experience (r = .23, p < .01), agreeableness (r = .19, p < .01), conscientiousness (r = .12, p < .01), and neuroticism (r = -.13, p < .01) (Table 3).

Table 4 shows the hierarchical regression model is significant (F = 11.7, p < .001) and explains 16% of the variance in the quality of work and of relationships. Personality traits play a key role in predicting the quality of work and of relationships (Δ R2 = .07, p < .001). More specifically, traits relating to extraversion (β = .13, p < .001), agreeableness (β = .14, p < .001) and openness to experience (β = .11, p < .01) have a significant and positive effect.

Given that extroverts are generally sociable, gregarious and friendly (Goldberg, 1992; James and Mazerolle, 2002; Mount and Barrick, 1995; Piedmont, 1998), it is not surprising that they give prominence to the quality of relationships in making employment decisions. According to other authors, extraversion and agreeableness have a positive impact on the importance attached to cooperation (Lindley and Borgen, 2000) and a negative impact on a culture of competition (Berings, de Fruyt, and Bouwen, 2004). Our results are equally consistent with those of other researchers who show that extroverts habitually give special weight to social interactions when making employment decisions (Barrick, Mount, and Gupta, 2003; de Fruyt and Mervielde, 1999), and that they are more attracted by a team culture (Judge and Cable, 1997).

Table 3

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among the Study Variables

Variable

M

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

1. Age

4.39

1.91

–

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Gender

1.36

0.48

.27**

–

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Nb of dependants

2.11

1.30

.23**

.24**

–

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Academic attainment

4.10

0.65

‑.05

.05

‑.01

–

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. Work experience

5.75

2.05

.90**

.23**

.25**

‑.11**

–

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. Salary

5.32

1.90

.63**

.31**

.27**

.07*

.60**

–

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. Organiz. seniority

3.20

1.83

.45**

.18**

.17**

‑.08*

.48**

.32**

–

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. Organization size

3.56

1.36

‑.06

‑.04

‑.00

.05

‑.02

.07*

‑.00

–

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9. Quality of work and of relationships

3.91

0.68

.17**

‑.02

.02

‑.03

.15**

.20**

‑.00

‑.12**

 (.86)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10. Variable pay

2.79

1.10

.06

.04

.05

‑.06

.04

.14**

‑.04

‑.10**

.35**

 (.88)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11. Indirect pay

3.45

0.83

.11**

.00

.05

‑.08*

.14*

.11*

.10**

.09**

.33**

.40**

 (.77)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12. Development/ career opportunities

3.69

0.89

‑.07*

‑.03

.01

‑.01

‑.08*

.04

.05

.06

.44**

.30**

.27**

 (.77)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13. Flexibility

3.22

1.25

.07

‑.10**

.04

‑.01

.07

.01

‑.03

‑.17**

.36**

.34**

.33**

.31**

 (.88)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14. Prestige

3.12

0.94

.06

‑.01

.02

‑.06

.06

.11**

.04

‑.01

.44**

.26**

.26**

.26**

.22**

 (.75)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15. Bonuses

2.55

1.06

‑.02

‑.14**

‑.02

‑.11**

‑.02

‑.08*

.04

.01

.29**

.44**

.54**

.28**

.43**

.23**

 (.82)

 

 

 

 

 

 

16. Workload

3.29

1.05

‑.03

‑.10**

.00

‑.07*

‑.03

‑.08*

‑.12**

‑.07*

.31**

.19**

.34**

.14**

.31**

.22**

.31**

‑

 

 

 

 

 

17. Conscientiousness

4.18

0.45

.11**

‑.18**

‑.03

.01

.11**

.01

.06

.06

.12**

‑.01

.12**

.07*

‑.02

.05

.06

‑.02

 (.78)

 

 

 

 

18. Extraversion

3.68

0.64

.02

‑.03

.01

.01

.00

.12**

‑.02

.05

.23**

.11**

.05

.16**

.01

.07*

.06

‑.03

.11**

 (.80)

 

 

 

19. Neuroticism

2.19

0.55

‑.15**

‑.09**

‑.08*

.03

‑.14**

‑.12**

‑.05

‑.02

‑.13**

‑.03

‑.02

‑.06

.04

.04

.02

.04

‑.23**

‑.13**

 (.78)

 

 

20. Agreeableness

4.05

0.40

.09**

‑.13**

.05

‑.06

.10**

‑.00

.00

.03

.19**

.05

.12**

.04

.06

.04

.09*

.07

.22**

.17**

‑.30**

(.66)

 

21. Openness to experience

3.71

0.53

.24**

.09**

.00

.07*

.21**

.22**

.08*

‑.05

.23**

.14**

.05

.17**

.13**

.10**

.06

‑.06

.15**

.29**

‑.12**

.13**

(.79)
*

p < .05;

**

p < .01.

-> See the list of tables

Table 4

Effect of Controls and Personality Traits on the Prominence Afforded to Total Rewards Components (hierarchical regression)

Step

Variables

Quality of work and of relationships

Variable pay

Indirect pay

Development and career opportunities

Flexibility of working conditions

Work prestige

Bonuses

Workload

1

Age

.04

‑.07

‑.09

‑.11

‑.00

‑.13

‑.00

‑.01

 

Gender

‑.09*

.00

‑.04

‑.04

‑.16***

‑.04

‑.13***

‑.10*

 

Nb of dependants

‑.02

.01

.02

.03

.06

‑.03

.03

.04

 

Academic attainment

‑.06

‑.10*

‑.08*

‑.04

.00

‑.07

‑.10**

‑.05

 

Work experience

.06

‑.02

.15

‑.10

.13

.08

.01

.08

 

Salary

.22***

.21***

.07

.15**

.01

.17***

‑.06

‑.06

 

Organiz. seniority

‑.09*

‑.07

.06

.11**

‑.08

.01

.07

‑.14***

 

Organization size

‑.13***

‑.10*

.08*

.03

‑.19***

‑.02

‑.00

‑.07

 

Δ R2

.08***

.04***

.04***

.03**

.07***

.03**

.04***

.04***

2

Conscientiousness

.06

‑.03

.08*

.04

‑.06

.03

.01

‑.02

 

Extraversion

.13***

.05

.00

.06

‑.05

.03

.01

‑.02

 

Neuroticism

‑.03

.02

.06

‑.04

.04

.09*

.05

.02

 

Agreeableness

.14***

.04

.10**

.01

.05

.05

.06

.06

 

Openness to experience

.11**

.13**

‑.00

.15***

.16***

.07

.10*

‑.05

 

Δ R2

.07***

.02**

.02*

.04***

.02**

.02*

.01

.01

 

R2

.16***

.06***

.06***

.07***

.09***

.05***

.05***

.05***

Note: All the values shown, except R2 values, are standardized regression coefficients. Model statistics are as follows: Quality of work and of work relationships: F (13, 824) = 11.71, p < .001; Variable pay: F (13, 700) = 3.55, p < .001; Indirect pay: F (13, 816) = 3.83, p < .001; Development and career opportunities: F (13, 806) = 4.67, p < .001; Flexibility: F (13, 667) = 5.35, p < .001; Prestige: F (13, 807) = 2.63, p < .001; Bonuses: F (13, 693) = 2.86, p < .001; Workload: F (13, 788) = 2.88, p < .001.

*

p < .05;

**

p < .01;

***

p < .001.

-> See the list of tables

The positive effect of agreeableness on the prominence given to quality of social relationships is also consistent with prior research showing that people who are socially conscious prefer working with others (Lindley et Borgen, 2000), are more in need of affiliation (Costa et McCrae, 1988), attach more importance to a team-oriented culture (Judge and Cable, 1997), make more effort towards preventing misunderstandings with others (Barrick, Stewart, and Piotrowski, 2002) and are more oriented towards careers of a social nature (Barrick, Mount, and Gupta, 2003; de Fruyt and Mervielde, 1999; Mount et al., 2005).

Lastly, control variables account for 8% of the variance in the prominence afforded to the quality of work and of relationships (p < .001). Four control variables exert a significant influence: salary (β = 0.22, p < .001), organization size (β = -.13, p < .001), gender (β = -.09, p < 0.05) and seniority in the organization (β = -.09, p < .05).

Personality and the Prominence Afforded to Variable Pay

Table 3 shows that the prominence given to indirect pay positively correlates with openness to experience (r = .14, p < .01) and extraversion (r = .11, p < .01). The hierarchical regression analysis (Table 4) is significant (F = 3.6, p < .001) and accounts for 6% of total variance in the prominence given to variable pay. More specifically, once control variables are taken into consideration, personality traits contribute significantly in explaining total variance (Δ R2 = 02, p < .01). However, only openness to experience (β = .13, p < .01) exerts a significant and positive effect on the attraction of variable pay. Consequently, our results do not validate the statement of authors who hold that the more extroverted people are, the more they are attracted to compensation (Gray, 1973; Lucas and Diener, 2001) since they are more risk tolerant (Lindley and Borgen, 2000).

Control variables alone account for 4% of the variation in the weight put on variable pay (p < .001). More specifically, annual salaries exert a significant and positive effect on the attraction of variable pay (β = .21, p < .001) while academic attainment (β = -.10, p < .05) and organization size (β = -.10, p < .05) exert a negative effect.

Personality and the Prominence Afforded to Indirect Pay

Table 3 shows that the prominence of indirect pay as an attraction tool positively correlates with conscientiousness (r = .12, p < .01) and agreeableness (r = .12, p < .01). In Table 4, the regression model is significant (F = 3.8, p < .001) and accounts for 6% of the variation in the prominence given to indirect pay. Once the control variables are taken into account, personality traits exert a great influence on predicting the prominence given to indirect pay (Δ R2 = .02, p < .05). More specifically, agreeableness (β = .10, p < .01) and conscientiousness (β = .08, p < .05) exert a significant and positive influence on the attractiveness of this component. In other words, the more agreeable and conscientious people are, the more they acknowledge taking into consideration aspects relating to insurance, pension, salary and job security in choosing their current employment.

Employees in a working environment that offers fringe benefits and provides security are more likely to enjoy pleasant social relationships, an aspect highly appreciated by agreeable people. These results also validate the work of Cable and Judge (1994) who show that persons who take risks, a characteristic related to conscientiousness (Goldberg, 1992), are more attracted to fixed compensations than those who are afraid to take risks. Therefore, organizations that seek to attract skilled employees that are agreeable and conscientious must be competitive with regards to salary, fringe benefits, pension plans, job security and vacations (time away from work). On the other hand, while the dislike for risks is apparently a fundamental characteristic of neuroticism (Clugston, Howell, and Dorfman, 2000), the study does not validate the existence of a link between neuroticism and the importance attached to insurance and safety.

Finally, the control variables account for a significant part of the prominence afforded to indirect pay (Δ R2 = .04, p < .001). Two control variables exert a significant influence: academic attainment obtained (β = -.08, p < .05) and organization size (β = .08, p < .05).

Personality and the Prominence Afforded to Development and Career Opportunities

Table 3 shows that the prominence given to development and career opportunities correlates with openness to experience (r = .17, p < .01), extraversion (r = .16, p < .01) and conscientiousness (r = .07, p < .05). Table 4 shows that the aggregate regression model is significant (F = 4.67, p < .001) and accounts for 7% of the variance in the prominence given to development and career opportunities. Once control variables are taken into consideration, personality traits exert a significant influence overall (Δ R2 = .04, p <.001). However, only openness to experience exerts a significant (positive) impact on the importance of development and career opportunities (β = .15, p < .001). This association is consistent with studies that show that openness to experience is associated with the belief in the value of self-improvement and the need to understand (Costa and McCrae, 1988; Holland et al., 1993).

The control variables account for 3% of the variability in the prominence afforded to development and career opportunities (p < .01). Specifically, salary (β = .15, p < .01) and seniority in the organization (β = .11, p < .01) significantly and positively impact the prominence given to development and career opportunities.

Personality and the Prominence Afforded to Flexibility of Working Conditions

Table 3 shows that the prominence given to the flexibility of working conditions correlates only with openness to experience (r = .13, p < .01). Table 4 shows that the aggregate regression model is significant (F = 5.35, p < .001) and accounts for 9% of the variance in the prominence afforded to the flexibility of working conditions. Once the control variables are taken into consideration, personality traits contribute greatly to the prediction of the prominence afforded to the flexibility of working conditions (Δ R2 = .02, p < .01). However, only openness to experience exerts a significant (positive) influence on the attractiveness of the flexibility of working conditions (β = .16, p < .001).

The control variables account for 7% of the variance in the prominence given to the flexibility of working conditions (p < .001). Organization size (β = -.19, p < .001) and gender (β = -.16, p < .001) are significantly associated with the prominence afforded to the flexibility of working conditions. It is worth noting that women’s interest in the flexibility of working conditions is consistent with prior research that shows their sensitivity to work-family balance and their search for flexible working conditions (Tremblay, 2003).

Personality and the Prominence Afforded to Work Prestige

Table 3 shows that the prominence given to work prestige correlates with openness to experience (r = .10, p < .01) and extraversion (r = .07, p < .05). Table 4 shows that the aggregate regression model is significant (F = 2.63, p < .001) and accounts for 5% of the variance in the prominence given to prestige. Once the control variables are taken into consideration, personality traits relate significantly to the prominence given to work prestige (Δ R2 = .02, p < .05). However, only neuroticism (β = .09, p < .05) exerts a significant (positive) influence on this component. In other words, the more emotionally unstable people are, the greater the prominence they ascribe to work prestige.

The control variables account for 3% of the variance in the prominence given to prestige (p < .01). However, only salary significantly impacts the prominence of prestige (β = .17, p < .001).

Personality and the Prominence Afforded to Bonuses

Table 3 shows that the prominence given to bonuses correlates only with agreeableness (r = .09, p < .05). Table 4 shows that the aggregate regression model is significant (F = 2.86, p < .001) and accounts for 5% of the variance in the prominence given to bonuses. However, once the control variables are taken into consideration, personality traits do not significantly account for the variation in this component (Δ R2 = .01, ns). Nevertheless, openness to experience does exert a significant influence (β = .10, p < .05). In other words, people who are curious and open to experience tend to ascribe greater prominence to bonuses in their choice of employment.

The control variables account for 4% of the variance in the prominence given to bonuses (p < .001). Specifically, gender (β = -.13, p < .001) and academic attainment (β = -.10, p < .01) significantly impact this variable. Consequently, women and less educated individuals give greater prominence to bonuses.

Personality and the Prominence Afforded to Work Load

Table 3 shows that the prominence given to work load does not correlate with any personality trait. Table 4 shows that the aggregate regression model is statistically significant (F = 2.88, p < .001) and accounts for 5% of the variance in the prominence given to work load. However, once the control variables are taken into consideration, personality traits do not significantly account for the variation in this component (Δ R2 = .01, ns), and no personality trait exerts a strong influence.

The control variables account for 4% of the variance in the prominence given to work load (p < 0.001). Specifically, seniority in the organization (β = -.14, p < .001) and gender (β = -.10, p < .05) are significantly associated with this variable.

Conclusion

Summary of Results and Implications

Our results show that once the effect of the eight control variables is taken into consideration, personality traits significantly account for the variability in the prominence given to six of the eight total rewards components studied: work content and social relationships (Δ R2 = 7%), development and career opportunities (Δ R2 = 4%), variable pay (Δ R2 = 2%), indirect pay (Δ R2 = 2%), flexibility of working conditions (Δ R2 = 2%), and work prestige (Δ R2 = 2%).

Contrary to previous research (Digman, 1990), our study shows that openness to experience is positively related to the attraction of a high number of total rewards components, such as the flexibility of working conditions (β = .16, p < .001), development and career opportunities (β = .15, p < .001), variable pay (β = .13, p < .01), work content and social relationships (β = .11, p < .01) and bonuses (β = .10, p < .05). Agreeableness as a personality trait is closely associated with the prominence afforded to quality of work and relationships (β = .14, p < .001) and indirect pay (β = .10, p < .01). The other three personality traits are each associated only with the prominence given to a single total rewards component: conscientiousness with indirect pay (β = .08, p < .05), extraversion with quality of work and relationships (β = .13, p < .001) and neuroticism with prestige (β = .09, p < .05). Among the control variables, salary, gender and education appear to be more highly associated with the prominence given to total rewards factors. On the other hand, age, number of dependants and work experience are control variables not at all associated with the total rewards components studied.

Our research has some practical implications. Notwithstanding the fact that Big Five personality traits do not exert much of an influence on the attractiveness of job characteristics, some of them deserve to be given particular attention in a staff recruitment context. For example, openness to experience is predictive of 5 of the 8 total rewards dimensions. This indicates that this personality trait should be assessed upon hiring, in view of the range of dimensions on which it operates. However, it is worth noting that personality plays a more significant role on the attractiveness of factors relating to work content and interpersonal relations. We can therefore advise organizations wishing to use this dimension as a means of attracting and motivating employees to resort to a sound selection of entry-level employees based on personality traits (particularly extraversion, agreeableness and openness to experience; see Table 4).

Research Limitations

Our study has some limitations. The adoption of a retrospective methodology requires that respondents recall the context that prevailed at the time of their decision, which does not allow us to distinguish between the factors that initially made the job attractive and their perceptions after their entry into the organization, to justify their decision. However, several authors hold that people easily recall the details surrounding their departure from an organization, since it is a major event in their life (Lee et al., 1999). We believe the same applies in the choice of a new employer. Our results may also have been influenced by social desirability, notwithstanding the fact that personality tests are known to be quite resistant to this type of bias (e.g., Ellingson, Smith, and Sackett, 2001; Viswesvaran, Deller, and Ones, 2007). Nevertheless, the scope of this bias is limited by the fact that our study focused on the prominence given to various total rewards components by a group of real employees—who happen to be thoroughly knowledgeable on the subject, given the positions they occupied—and whom we controlled for the effect of seniority in the organization. Furthermore, some total rewards components studied may appear less visible and salient to potential job seekers (e.g., relations with colleagues, bonuses).

At the same time, given that our sample included only professionals, the possibility of generalizing our results is limited. However, the results of this study are very pertinent owing to the fact that they were obtained from a homogenous group of employees—human resource professionals in the Province of Quebec—who are also most likely to consider all rewards components when choosing an employer.

Research Avenues

The results of this investigation study can serve as a basis for future studies. The fact that the personality traits measured within the context of our study are hardly predictive of the attraction of total rewards components is an important result in itself. This result fuels the debate on the use of personality tests. On the one hand, some authors doubt the practicality of their results in predicting work performance (Morgeson et al., 2007), while others consider them pertinent in that regard (James and Mazerolle, 2001; Rothstein and Goffin, 2006; Schneider and Smith, 2004). On the other hand, future research may be able to examine not only the moderating effects of personality traits on total rewards components, but on their attractiveness as well (Lievens et al., 2001; Turban and Keon, 1993), or as an alternative, measure the incidence of personality traits other than those of the Big Five (e.g., self-esteem, risk aversion). Other individual characteristics may also have a bearing on the allure of total rewards components, particularly values (e.g., individualism vs. collectivism, cooperation vs. competition), needs (e.g., need for achievement), individual skills, or expectations.

In using employed subjects, this study has examined, from an individual perspective, the association between personality and the attraction of total rewards components. Future research may focus on employers and thus give preference to an organizational perspective. Notwithstanding the fact that researchers have demonstrated that decisions employers make regarding rewards have a bearing not only on the composition of their labour force in terms of skills and personality (Schneider, 1987; Schneider, Goldstein, and Smith, 1995), but also on the departure of their personnel (Lazear, 1999), no researcher seems to have analyzed the factors that influence the prominence employers ascribe to the various total reward components in order to attract and retain their employees. Furthermore, Gerhart and Rynes (2003) recommend that researchers go out into the field to conduct their research, as this will allow them a better understanding of the strategic considerations that influence executives to give higher or lower prominence to certain total rewards components for their staff. Finally, whereas this study adopted the individual dispositions perspective, it would be pertinent to analyze the staff attraction process in the light of other organizational behaviour theories, such as Meyer’s (1991) forms of commitment model or the theory of psychological contract.