- Email: [email protected]
The influence of type A behaviour and locus of control upon job satisfaction and occupational health
Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 1361–1371 www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
The influence of type A behaviour and locus of control upon job satisfaction and occupational health Bruce D. Kirkcaldya,*, Roy J. Shephardb, Adrian F. Furnhamc a
International Centre for the Study of Occupational & Mental Health, Haydnstr., 61,40593, Du¨sseldorf, Germany b Faculty of Physical Education & Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada c Department of Psychology, University College London, London, UK Received 15 June 2001; received in revised form 1 November 2001; accepted 3 January 2002
Abstract Results from this study show that in a sample of 332 German managers a Type A personality and an External locus of control are associated with greater perceived levels of stress (particularly in terms of inter-personal relationships), lower job satisfaction and a poorer physical and mental health than that of managers with a type B personality and an Internal locus of control. The magnitude of main effect size is substantially larger than the interaction terms (Type ALocus of Control). There is no evidence to support a significant effect of a Type ALocus of Control interaction on either of the health outcome measures (physical and psychological health), but there is some evidence of an interaction with work satisfaction outcomes (job satisfaction and organizational satisfaction). Those with an External locus showed significantly lower levels of work satisfaction, especially when this characteristic was combined with a Type A personality. It appears that negative health consequences may outweigh the superficial attractiveness of the type A personality in a managerial position, particularly when this trait is coupled with a more external locus of control. # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Locus of control; Type A behaviour; Management; Work satisfaction; Mental health; Physical health
1. Introduction Two of the most exhaustively researched personality constructs which appear related to psychosomatic health and work behaviour are Type A behaviour and Locus of Control (Arnold, Robertson, & Cooper, 1991; Furnham, 1999; Greenberg & Baron, 1992). Popular opinion seems to regard the Type A personality (Friedman & Rosenman, 1974) and an internal locus of control * Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-211-718-4220; fax: +49-211-718-5133. E-mail address: [email protected] (B.D. Kirkcaldy). 0191-8869/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S0191-8869(02)00018-1
1362
B.D. Kirkcaldy et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 1361–1371
(Rotter, 1966) as ideal characteristics for those employed in managerial positions. However, the impact of such personality characteristics upon levels of stress, job satisfaction, and occupational health is less clearly established. This study is one of a series looking at the relationship between these two individual differences and job satisfaction and adjustment (Kirkcaldy, Cooper, & Furnham, 1999; Kirkcaldy, Furnham, & Cooper, 1994). The concept of Internality vs. Externality (locus of control) was originally proposed by Rotter (1966). The locus of control summarizes an individual’s underlying beliefs about the control of outcomes of various kinds. It assumes that everyone develops a general concept regarding their personal ability to control all aspects of their lives. Individuals who believe that the events that occur in their lives are consequences of their own behaviour and/or ability, personality or effort are said to have the expectancy of internal control, whereas people who believe that the events in their lives are a function of luck, chance, fate, God(s), powerful others beyond their control or manipulation are said to have an expectancy of external control. People with a high internal locus of control tend to have higher aspirations, to be more persistent, to respond more to challenge, and to see themselves as a source of their success (Vincent & Furnham, 1997). Furthermore, an internal locus of control is intimately associated with general health, so that one would expect those with such a locus to be more sensitive to health messages, more keen to enhance their physical health (positive attitudes towards exercise and physical activity; increased participation in physical and recreational pursuits; more likely to be non-smokers) and more likely to show psychological well-being (cf. Furnham & Drakeley, 1993; Furnham & Kirkcaldy, 1996; Kirkcaldy, Shephard, & Furnham, 1994; Strickland, 1978). An active interest in Type A behaviour in the work place continues. Friedman and Rosenman (1974) had demonstrated a relationship between specific behavioural patterns (e.g. highly competitive, impatient, sense of time-urgency, restlessness, pressurized and hostile) believed to characterize the Type A temperament, and an array of psychosomatic ailments, coronary heart disease being of particular concern. The evidence concerning coronary vascular disease is equivocal and if there is indeed a relationship, it appears that the major predictors of CHD lie within the hostility sub component of the Type A personality profile (Blumenthal, McKee, Haney, & Williams, 1980). Berry (1998) argued that organizational psychologists are interested in Type A personality characteristics for two reasons, ‘‘First, the conditions that appear to elicit this behaviour, such as opportunities for achievement, are common aspects of the work environment. Thus, certain individuals may show chronic high arousal and develop an associated cardiovascular problem just by being at work. This is something the organisation does not want. Second, it looks as if type A behaviour results in high work performance and accomplishment. This, of course, is something the organisation does want’’ (p. 439). Kirkcaldy, Cooper, Furnham, and Brown (1993) administered the Occupational Stress Indicator—which measures both type A/B and Locus of Control characteristics—to a large sample of public service managers (police superintendents). They compared four personality categories (Type A and an external or an internal locus of control, and Type B, Internal vs. External locus of control) in terms of job-related stress, and diverse outcome variables (work satisfaction, and physical and psychological health). They found no main effect due to the Type A-B dichotomy, but they did observe pronounced effects attributable to Internal vs. External locus of control. Overall, employees with an External locus showed low work satisfaction scores (especially with regard to organizational processes, personal relationships and organizational design and structure), and
B.D. Kirkcaldy et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 1361–1371
1363
higher occupational stress scores (on the subscales managerial role, career and achievement, and organizational climate). Moreover, individuals with an External locus displayed poorer physical as well as psychological (self-reported) health. Further correlational analyses had revealed that although the overall Type A personality may not be related with outcome variables per se, specific subcomponents of Type A were. For instance, both physical and psychological health were significantly correlated with the style of behaviour (in terms of the subscale assessing the behavioural component and incorporating items associated with speed and abruptness (time-urgency and time consciousness). On the other hand, attitudes to living comprising cognitive components (confidence and work commitment) were more related to work satisfaction. Recent studies have emphasized the need to focus on the elements of time urgency and time awareness facets of Type A personality, drawing similarities between time-consciousness and Hall’s concept of monochronic/polychronic time orientation. The ‘‘stereotype of the Type A/ polychronic manager (is) someone who has three telephones on his (or her) desk, constantly ringing; someone who shouts out orders to scrambling underlings while signing a purchase order with one hand and eating a chili dog with the other. There is evidence that suggests, however, that type A persons may have a more monochronic approach approval to the organisation of time than previously thought’’ (Frei, Racicot, & Travagline, 1999). In a later study, Kirkcaldy et al. (1999) examined relationships between Type A, internality– externality, and emotional distress and perceived health in a sample of European managers (of British and German origin). Those with a Type A/internal personality expressed the most job satisfaction and showed superior physical and psychological health, although their advantage was significant for the British sample only. Those with Types A and B/external characteristics exhibited higher mental illness scores, whereas only those with Type B/external traits reported significantly more physical symptoms (physical ill-health). Those with Type B/internal characteristics appeared to report the best health. Kirkcaldy and Martin (1999) investigated almost 300 nurses in a large Northern Ireland hospital. They found that Type A behaviour emerged as a significant determinant of physical health, in contrast to an internal locus of control, the latter being related more to psychological health, a lower level of occupational stress, and greater job satisfaction, ‘‘especially in terms of organizational processes and personal relationships. . .(and) less stress associated with working climate, managerial role, and career and motivation’’ (p. 10) Consistent with the previous findings, there was no indication of any Type ALocus of Control interaction. A meta-analysis of locus of control studies showed that subjective reports of an internal locus of control were associated with greater work satisfaction, job commitment, involvement, motivation and performance (Spector 1986). Moreover, an internal locus of control was coupled with lower levels of emotional distress, superior physical health (fewer symptoms), and less occupational role stress, absenteeism, and personal fluctuations in mood state. The novel aspects of the present study is the focus on managers in a European country currently hit by severe problems of economic recession, fusions, globalizations, and the enduring impact of re-unification. In our previous studies (Kirkcaldy et al. 1993; Kirkcaldy & Martin, 1999) we analysed the interactions of Type A and locus of control in detail but the Kirkcaldy et al (1993) study had focussed on British public service (police) managers and the Kirkcaldy and Martin (1999) study on (British) nursing personnel (and the latter used different measures taken from diverse questionnaires). Accordingly, we examined these issues in a sample of German managerial staff who
1364
B.D. Kirkcaldy et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 1361–1371
were classified in terms of their personal scores for Type A behaviour and locus of control. Managers are a surprisingly understudied group in the time stress literature. Given that such individuals are among the worst victims of increased hours and pressures at work, this seems an important omission in the literature. On the basis of previous research findings, we hypothesized that a person with a Type A personality and an external locus of control would experience greater stress and have less job satisfaction when employed in a managerial role. This would reflect difficulties in persuading other employees to meet the deadlines which they had imposed upon themselves, and a feeling of inability to correct the situation when self-imposed goals were not met. Conversely, the interactive effects of Type A and Locus of Control would be small when compared with the main effects of a Type A personality and more particularly, the locus of Control. In accordance with previous studies (Kirkcaldy et al. 1993; Kirkcaldy & Martin, 1999) we adopted the taxonomy proposed by Nowack and Sassenrath (1980), generating four classes of individuals —A/I, A/E, B/I and B/E/E. We predicted that those with A/I characteristics would express the least job stress and the greatest work satisfaction (and that these differences would be most apparent in those areas associated with working and organisational climate, as well as interpersonal relationships), also reporting less physical and psychological illness than those in the other three groups (particularly B/E). Secondly, the A/E group would display the most occupational stress and the least satisfaction with their work, giving more frequent reports of illness, with the B/I group showing the greatest mental and physical health.
2. Methods 2.1. Participants A group of 332 managerial level staff (n=208, 72.7% men and 37.3% women, aged 18–65 years) were recruited from diverse organizations in the public and private sectors throughout Germany, in accordance with a protocol approved by the institutional committee on human experimentation. The average age was 47 years (sample distribution: 21–30 years 20.5%, 31–40 years 23.1%, 41–50 years 28.6%, 51–60 years 22.0% and >60 years 5.9%). The managers were responsible for an average of between 7 and 40 personnel, and were mainly in the administrative and industrial sector, as well as medical management. Data were collected over a 9 month period from 1 June 1999 until 30 March 2000, using the pressure management indicator (PMI). Questionnaires were distributed with stamped and addressed envelopes. Generally, they were to be returned to the International Centre for the Study of Occupational and Mental Health (for the Older Federal States). The response rate was very high (over 80%) because only those who had expressed an interest in the project were supplied with the questionnaires. Subjects were allowed to complete the inventory in their own time. They were not paid for participation, but they were debriefed wherever possible, and a free individualized case-report narrative regarding their occupational stress profiles was offered if requested. Each completed a battery of questionnaires (the PMI) covering job stressors, job satisfaction, physical and mental health, in addition to traditional questionnaires for assessment of type A behaviour and locus of control.
B.D. Kirkcaldy et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 1361–1371
1365
2.2. Questionnaire The PMI was derived from the Occupational Stress Indicator (OSI) of Cooper, Sloan, and Williams (1988). The PMI is more reliable, and substantially shorter than the OSI (Williams & Cooper, 1998; Williams, Kirkcaldy, & Cooper, 1999). It provides an integrated measure of job satisfaction, organizational satisfaction, organizational security and organizational commitment. In addition, it provides outcome scales to assess physical (physical symptoms and exhaustion) and psychological well-being (anxiety depression, resilience and worry). Occupational stress variables include pressure originating from workload and social relationships, recognition, organizational climate, the extent of personal responsibility, managerial role, home–work balance, and daily hassles. Finally, moderator variables are included such as Type A behaviour (drive and impatience ‘‘need for urgency’’), locus of control (decision latitude, personal influence) and coping strategies (problem focus such as ‘‘planning ahead and time management’’; social support, and life–work balance). Subject responses to the multiple choice questionnaire were scored on a Likert Scale (possible range 1–6). The robustness of the PMI has been tested extensively by item and confirmatory factor analysis. The internal consistencies were satisfactory (varying from +0.64 for daily hassles, to +0.89 for job satisfaction). Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the PMI offered a significant improvement on the original OSI (Williams, 1996). Data for job stressors, job satisfaction, physical and mental health were analysed by 22 ANOVA, based on the subjects’ combinations of type A and locus of control scores.
3. Results Among the present sample of 332 subjects, the mean score (S.D.) for Type A was 36.04.0, with little skewing about the mean cut-off point. The mean PR (Percentile) for the sample was 58.0, relative to population norms of 50, suggesting that our sample on average had Type A scores somewhat above those for the general population. The median score for internal locus of control in the sample was 31, again showing little skewing and a mean score of 31.54.6 (PR 63.9 when compared with the general population). Two Type A/B and locus of control (internal/external) groups were generated, using splitting below and above 36.0 for Type A and 31.5 for locus of control (n=119 Type B internals; n=83 Type B externals; n=69 Type A externals; and n=85 Type A internals). The correlation between scores for a Type A personality and an internal Locus of Control was positive and significant, albeit the magnitude of the correlation was quite small (r=+0.17, P<0.01). This was similar to the findings in other studies (Kirkcaldy & Martin, 1999; Kirkcaldy et al., 1993). 3.1. Relationships to job stressors Results of the 22 ANOVA are summarized in Table 1. Overall, there was no indication of a significant interaction between personality type and locus of control [lambda=0.97, F(8, 345)=1.41, P> 0.05]. Across all job stress subscales, the lowest levels of job stress scores were reported by individuals with a combination of Type B personality and an Internal locus of control. A Type-A personality was related to higher levels of perceived job stress across many subscales,
1366
B.D. Kirkcaldy et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 1361–1371
Table 1 22 ANOVA of job stressor scores, based on personality type (A/B) and locus of control (External/Internal, E/I)a
Job stressors Workload Relationships Recognition Organisation climate Responsibility Managerial role Home/work balance Daily hassles
AE
AI
BE
BI
F (locus of control E/I)
F (Type A/B)
F (Type A/Blocus E/I)
19.77 29.97 13.09 14.20 12.73 10.73 17.55 11.96
20.17 26.80 11.25 12.73 12.13 11.60 16.33 12.48
19.19 27.04 12.18 12.87 12.80 10.88 16.58 11.80
18.23 23.89 10.24 12.12 11.57 10.71 14.23 11.10
0.18 11.18*** 20.02*** 9.93** 4.35* 0.66 7.83** 0.06
3.60 (*) 9.54** 5.16* 7.64** 0.79 0.71 5.79* 4.59*
0.31 0.99 0.91 0.30 0.58 0.23 0.38 0.09
Levels of statistical significance: * P< ***; **, P< ***; *** P< ***(high scores indicate greater levels of job-related stress). Bold print signifies the highest group mean score; italic print signifies the lowest group score. a The last three columns summarize F scores (1, 352) for personality type, locus of control and their interaction.
including interpersonal relationships, recognition, organizational climate, home–work balance and daily hassles, but it did not appear to be associated with the subscales personal responsibility (taking responsibility for managing and supervising other people), and managerial role (assuming responsibility for personal actions and decisions). There was no relationship between an internal locus of control and intrinsic workload (the amount or difficulty of the work dealt with), managerial role, or daily hassles (day to day irritants and aggravations in the workplace). On the other hand, scores for the remaining five sub-scales of stress differed significantly between individuals with an internal, and those with an external locus of control. Specifically, relationships, recognition (the extent to which people feel they need to have their achievements recognized), organizational climate, and home–work balance were stressors reported more frequently by managers with an external locus of control. The magnitude of effect sizes (BESD, using Rosenthal’s r) distinguishing low and high locus of control groups were for recognition 0.232, relationships 0.176, organizational climate 0.166, home–work balance 0.148, and responsibility 0.110. In contrast, the effect sizes for a type A personality were relationships 0.162, organizational climate 0.145, home–work balance 0.127, recognition 0.120, and daily hassles 0.114. 3.2. Job satisfaction The second stage of our analysis was the computation of four separate 22 ANOVAs, using the four subscales of work satisfaction as dependent variables and locus of control (E/I) and personality type A/B as the main effect variables (Table 2). All of the main effects of locus of control were highly statistically significant (magnitudes of effect size, using Rosenthal’s r, ranged from 0.201 (organizational satisfaction) through to 0.392 (organizational security). Of significant effects due to a Type A personality (organizational satisfaction and organizational security), those with an internal locus of control proved to be the most satisfied group; in contrast, those with a Type A personality and an external locus of control were the least satisfied in terms of
1367
B.D. Kirkcaldy et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 1361–1371
Table 2 22 ANOVA of job satisfaction scores, based on personality type (A/B) and locus of control (External/Internal, E/I)a
Satisfaction at work Job satisfaction Organizational satisfaction Organizational security Organizational commitment
AE
AI
BE
BI
F (locus of control locus E/I)
F (Type A/B)
F (Type A/B control locus E/I)
23.70 17.71 16.54 20.09
28.09 21.08 19.81 22.35
25.35 20.20 18.19 20.57
27.53 21.11 20.55 22.06
52.92*** 14.83*** 63.75*** 31.96***
1.44 5.14* 11.26*** 0.08
6.00* 4.93* 1.62 1.37
Levels of statistical significance: * P< ***; **, P< ***; *** P <*** (high scores indicate increased work satisfaction across all subscales). Bold print signifies the highest group mean score; italic print signifies the lowest group score. a The three columns on the right summarize F scores (1,352) for personality type, locus of control and their interaction.
organizational satisfaction and security. The size of the main effects for Type A ranged from 0.120 (organizational satisfaction) to 0.176 (organizational security). Two interactive effects were also statistically significant (1) job satisfaction, and (2) organizational satisfaction. Job satisfaction is substantially greater among individuals with an internal locus of control than in those with an external locus. On the other hand, subjectively reported job satisfaction is less for Type A than for Type B personalities. Personnel with an internal locus of control enjoy higher levels of satisfaction in the way the organisation is structured and the way it works compared with their counterparts with an external locus. The lower level of subjectively reported satisfaction among those with an external locus of control is very much less pronounced for Type B than for Type A personalities. 3.3. Physical and mental health The next analyses focussed on the outcomes of physical and mental health, and their respective subscales (Table 3). None of the subscales showed any evidence of Type ALocus of Control interactions. The profiles of Type A personality and locus of control both appeared to be related to physical health. Individuals with an internal locus reported substantially better physical health than their counterparts with an external locus. Furthermore, individuals with a Type B personality reported superior health to Type A individuals. These differences were found for both sub-components of physical well-being, physical symptoms (degree of calmness in terms of physical tension, or uncomfortable feelings, for example shortness of breath, muscle tremor or eye twitching, and prickling sensations or twinges in various parts of the body) and energy level (extent of energy and vitality, for example feeling unaccountably tired or exhausted, reluctant to get up in the morning, lack of energy, and difficulty in sleeping). The magnitude of effect sizes differentiating an external from an internal locus of control ranged from 0.200 (physical symptoms) to 0.220 (energy level). Conversely, the size of effects distinguishing type A vs. B personalities were 0.118 for both physical symptoms and energy level As regards, mental health, a Type A personality was associated only with confidence level (how worried you are). The Type A sub-group was significantly more worried, for example, ‘‘When the
1368
B.D. Kirkcaldy et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 1361–1371
Table 3 22 ANOVA of job stressor scores, based on personality type (A/B) and locus of control (External/Internal, E/I)a
Physical health Physical symptoms Energy level
AE
AI
BE
BI
F- locus of control
14.28 14.54
14.98 15.97
14.50 15.10
16.08 17.33
14.66*** 17.86***
F-Type A
F - Type Acontrol
4.93* 4.96*
0.14 0.36
3.58 (*) 1.30 18.80***
0.96 0.25 0.86
F (1, 356) locus of control Mental health State of mind Resilience Confidence
19.58 13.29 8.68
21.73 12.72 9.42
20.51 13.29 9.88
22.71 13.19 10.53
18.46*** 2.58 6.82**
The three columns on the right summarize F scores (1,356) for personality type, locus of control and their interaction. a Levels of statistical significance: * P< ***; **, P< ***; *** P<*** (high scores reflect superior health outcome). Bold print signifies the highest group mean score; italic print signifies the lowest group score.
pressure starts to mount at work, I cannot find sufficient store or reserve of energy which I can call on when needed to spur me into action’’, ‘‘When colleagues and friends behave in an aloof way towards me, I tend to worry about what I may have done to offend them as opposed to just dismissing it’’. Conversely, locus of control, although unrelated to resilience (ability to bounce back from setbacks or problems), was significantly related to both confidence level and state of mind (level of mental well-being) for example, ‘‘During an ordinary working day, are there times when you feel unsettled and upset though the reasons for this might not always be clearly obvious?’’ ‘‘Are there times at work when the things you have got to deal with simply become too much and you feel so overtaxed that you think you are cracking up?’’ Overall, a Type A personality seems to be most associated with the worrying component of mental health, in contrast to an internal locus of control which is more coupled with the state of mind (mental tension). The difference in effect sizes between those with Internal and External loci, using Rosenthal’s estimates, were 0.138 (confidence) and 0.223 (state of mind). On the other hand, differences between Type A and B ranged from 0.100 (state of mind) to 0.225 (confidence).
4. Discussion The results of this study are comparable with previous studies in this program, despite the fact that we used slightly different tests on a different population group. This certainly gives one confidence in the robustness of the effects which have been demonstrated. The current sample was drawn predominantly from managers in Germany, and the findings do not necessarily apply to other segments of the labour force. Indeed, the mean scores for type A personality and locus of control differed in the anticipated directions from the population norms (a predominance of type A personality and an internal locus of control; type A/I). It seems highly likely that managers are
B.D. Kirkcaldy et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 1361–1371
1369
recruited in part for these characteristics, and in part for their ability to handle the stresses one might normally associate with such a combination of personality characteristics. In keeping with our initial hypotheses, individuals with a Type B personality reported less stress than those with a Type A personality. However, the conflicts and stresses that were noted reflected inter-relationships in the organization and at home, rather than the fulfillment of personal and managerial responsibilities. Also in keeping with our hypotheses, perceived levels of stress were greater for those with an external locus of control. Again, the focus was on inter-relationships rather than the intrinsic workload associated with the task. It was noticeable from Table 1 that the locus of control had a more powerful impact than the Type A/B continuum. These results are in accordance with previous studies (Furnham & Drakeley, 1993). It seems likely that the differences in perceived stress noted earlier would also have an impact on job satisfaction, and Table 2 suggests that this is indeed the case. Individuals with a Type A personality tended to be more dissatisfied with their jobs in terms of organization; however, job satisfaction and job commitment showed no effects of Type A/B behavioural characteristics. Likewise an external locus of control had a negative impact on all aspects of job satisfaction, as might be anticipated from the higher levels of perceived stress in this sub-group. Once again, locus of control was the more powerful of the two variables. 4.1. Impacts on physical and mental health It seems likely that a high level of perceived stress and a lack of job satisfaction would in turn affect health, and again the data bear out this hypothesis. Reported physical and mental health were both greater in Type B than in Type A individuals, and reported health was also greater in those with an internal rather than an external locus of control. This conclusion must, of course, be tempered by the constraint that we are here relying on subjective reports, and it may be that personality type and locus of control influence symptom-reporting (Pennebaker, 1992) as well as clinically observable physical and mental health. The present analysis was based upon a four-way classification of personnel. However, it seems likely that the adverse effects of a given personality combination will be most apparent at the extremes of the personality distribution, and there thus remains scope for defining limits of Type A and external locus characteristics that would allow successful employment without negative effects upon health. Based on previous research in the area we predicted that A type Externals would show most stress and least satisfaction and B Type Internals least stress and most satisfaction. Most but not all the results confirmed this hypothesis. For instance in half of the eight job stress factors the A type externals did score highest while on ALL of the factors the B type Internals did score lowest. Similarly for the Satisfaction factors the A type Externals were lowest on each of the four factors while the B type internals were highest on half the factors. Indeed with only one exception the Locus of Control part of the hypotheses was confirmed: Internals are less stressed and more satisfied than Externals. But can the results throw any light on whether A type behaviour patterns are desirable in managers? Few would argue there are many benefits of having an internal locus of control but there are mixed findings with the A Type pattern. The results certainly suggest that A type managers report more stress which is unlikely to be good. Whether they themselves create the stress, or are simply hypersensitive to it, or are willing to report it is not clear though the latter
1370
B.D. Kirkcaldy et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 1361–1371
explanation is unlikely. But A type managers, at least internal A Type managers do report more job satisfaction and more commitment. What the results suggest is that A type interacts with other factors with respect to positive outcomes but not negative outcomes. That is, if an A Type manager has an Internal locus of control and works in an organization that empowers employees and recognizes dedication and commitment they can be happy. On the other hand it maybe just part of the A type behaviour pattern to over report job satisfaction. The results certainly seem to suggest that despite the evidence that A type managers work harder and more frenetically, there are few long-term benefits to either the individual or the organization of having an A, as opposed to a B type behaviour pattern. The optimum personality for a company manager is an important issue to resolve, and findings of the present type merit combining with information on organizational effectiveness and longterm clinical health. It may be that despite the greater level of stress that they experience, Type A individuals remain more effective plant managers than those with a Type B personality. Particularly if the Type A characteristics are not excessively developed, an increase in stress level may merely bring the person concerned to a eu-stress level, where occupational performance is optimized. The goal of selection must be to match personality with task demands, so that this optimum is realized. An external locus of control is typically associated with employees who have little access to power, mobility, or opportunity for material advancement. On the other hand, it is possible to change the expectancies of both managers and employees from an external to an internal locus of control through empowerment and other strategies; this in turn impacts on their health, productivity and satisfaction. The present study was cross-sectional in nature and future studies would profit from a longitudinal design. The PMI shares the structural form of its predecessor the OSI, but it is not identical, particularly with respect to factor structure and labeling of subscales. Thus, direct comparisons with previous research is not strictly possible. Managers show heightened type A and internal locus of control scores relative to the general population, and this may attenuate any relationships between Type A behaviour and outcome variables. Type A is a complex multifaceted dimension, and there is evidence that the major determinant of health resides in the hostility subcomponent of Type A,which is not evaluated in the PMI questionnaire. Physical health and self reports of health are imperfectly correlated; hence it remains questionable how valid an index of actual physical health is given by such measures. The OSI mental health outcome scales show evidence of a dual nature, a characteristic which is probably shared with the PMI: the two dimensions are more accurately labeled negative affectivity and positive affect and they are theoretically independent.
5. Conclusions Type A personality characteristics and an external locus of control appear to induce high levels of stress, with negative consequences for job satisfaction and physical and mental health. The aims of personnel selection should be to match personality to task demands, so that the level of stress is such as to optimize the individual’s occupational performance. Alternatively, by psychometric identification of individuals who may be particularly susceptible to occupational stress,
B.D. Kirkcaldy et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 1361–1371
1371
it may be possible to introduce stress-management programmes or on-site counselling tailored to cope with the potential stressors. References Arnold, J., Robertson, I., & Cooper, C. L. (1991). Work psychology: understanding human behavior in the workplace. London: Pitman. Berry, L. (1998). Psychology at work. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Blumenthal, J., McKee, D., Haney, T., & Williams, R. (1980). Task incentives, type A behavior pattern, and verbal problem solving performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 101–111. Cooper, C. L., Sloan, S., & Williams, S. (1988). Occupational stress indicator manual. Windsor: NFER-Nelson. Frei, R. L., Racicot, B., & Travagline, A. (1999). The impact of monochronic and Type A behaviour patterns on research productivity and stress. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14, 5–98. Friedman, M., & Rosenman, R. (1974). Type A behaviour and your heart. New York: Knopf. Furnham, A. (1999). The psychology of behaviour at work. Hive, Sussex: Psychologist Press. Furnham, A., & Drakeley, R. (1993). Work locus of control and perceived organisational climate. European Work and Organisational Psychologist, 3, 1–9. Furnham, A., & Kirkcaldy, B. D. (1996). The health beliefs and behaviours of orthodox and complementary medicine clients. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 25( 1), 49–61. Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. (1992). Behaviour in organizations. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Kirkcaldy, B. D., Cooper, C. L., & Furnham, A. (1999). The relationship between Type A, internality-externality, emotional distress and perceived health. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 223–235. Kirkcaldy, B. D., Cooper, C. L., Furnham, A., & Brown, L. (1993). Personality, job satisfaction and well-being among public sector (police) managers. In: Special Issue (Bartram, D.; Ed.), The Validity and Utility of Personality Assessment in Occupational Psychology. European Review of Applied Psychology, 43(3), 241–248. Kirkcaldy, B. D., Furnham, A., & Cooper, C. L. (1994). Police personality, job satisfaction and health. Studia Psychologica, 36(1), 55–63. Kirkcaldy, B. D., & Martin, T. (1999). Job stress and satisfaction among nurses: Individual differences. Stress Medicine, 16, 77–89. Kirkcaldy, B. D., Shephard, R. J., & Furnham, A. (1994). Attitudes towards health and illness among exercisers and non-exercisers. Stress Medicine, 10, 21–26. Nowack, K., & Sassenrath, J. (1980). Coronary-prone behaviour, locus of control and anxiety. Psychological Reports, 47, 359–369. Pennebaker, J. (1992). Putting stress into words: Health, linguistics and therapeutic interventions. Washington: APA Paper. Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal vs. External control reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80 (1, Whole No. 609). Spector, P. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy and participation at work. Human relations, 11, 1005–1016. Strickland, B. (1978). Internal–External expectancies and health-related behaviour. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 6, 1192–1211. Vincent, C., & Furnham, A. (1977). Complementary medicine. A research perspective. Chichester and New York: Wiley. Williams, S. (1996). A critical review and further development of the occupational stress indicator. Doctoral thesis. University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. Williams, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1998). Measuring occupational stress. Developments of the Pressure Management Indicator. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3( 4), 306–321. Williams, S., Kirkcaldy, B. D., & Cooper, C. L. (1999). German version of the pressure management indicator. Harrogate, UK: Resources Systems.
The influence of type A behaviour and locus of control upon job satisfaction and occupational health Bruce D. Kirkcaldya,*, Roy J. Shephardb, Adrian F. Furnhamc a
International Centre for the Study of Occupational & Mental Health, Haydnstr., 61,40593, Du¨sseldorf, Germany b Faculty of Physical Education & Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada c Department of Psychology, University College London, London, UK Received 15 June 2001; received in revised form 1 November 2001; accepted 3 January 2002
Abstract Results from this study show that in a sample of 332 German managers a Type A personality and an External locus of control are associated with greater perceived levels of stress (particularly in terms of inter-personal relationships), lower job satisfaction and a poorer physical and mental health than that of managers with a type B personality and an Internal locus of control. The magnitude of main effect size is substantially larger than the interaction terms (Type ALocus of Control). There is no evidence to support a significant effect of a Type ALocus of Control interaction on either of the health outcome measures (physical and psychological health), but there is some evidence of an interaction with work satisfaction outcomes (job satisfaction and organizational satisfaction). Those with an External locus showed significantly lower levels of work satisfaction, especially when this characteristic was combined with a Type A personality. It appears that negative health consequences may outweigh the superficial attractiveness of the type A personality in a managerial position, particularly when this trait is coupled with a more external locus of control. # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Locus of control; Type A behaviour; Management; Work satisfaction; Mental health; Physical health
1. Introduction Two of the most exhaustively researched personality constructs which appear related to psychosomatic health and work behaviour are Type A behaviour and Locus of Control (Arnold, Robertson, & Cooper, 1991; Furnham, 1999; Greenberg & Baron, 1992). Popular opinion seems to regard the Type A personality (Friedman & Rosenman, 1974) and an internal locus of control * Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-211-718-4220; fax: +49-211-718-5133. E-mail address: [email protected] (B.D. Kirkcaldy). 0191-8869/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S0191-8869(02)00018-1
1362
B.D. Kirkcaldy et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 1361–1371
(Rotter, 1966) as ideal characteristics for those employed in managerial positions. However, the impact of such personality characteristics upon levels of stress, job satisfaction, and occupational health is less clearly established. This study is one of a series looking at the relationship between these two individual differences and job satisfaction and adjustment (Kirkcaldy, Cooper, & Furnham, 1999; Kirkcaldy, Furnham, & Cooper, 1994). The concept of Internality vs. Externality (locus of control) was originally proposed by Rotter (1966). The locus of control summarizes an individual’s underlying beliefs about the control of outcomes of various kinds. It assumes that everyone develops a general concept regarding their personal ability to control all aspects of their lives. Individuals who believe that the events that occur in their lives are consequences of their own behaviour and/or ability, personality or effort are said to have the expectancy of internal control, whereas people who believe that the events in their lives are a function of luck, chance, fate, God(s), powerful others beyond their control or manipulation are said to have an expectancy of external control. People with a high internal locus of control tend to have higher aspirations, to be more persistent, to respond more to challenge, and to see themselves as a source of their success (Vincent & Furnham, 1997). Furthermore, an internal locus of control is intimately associated with general health, so that one would expect those with such a locus to be more sensitive to health messages, more keen to enhance their physical health (positive attitudes towards exercise and physical activity; increased participation in physical and recreational pursuits; more likely to be non-smokers) and more likely to show psychological well-being (cf. Furnham & Drakeley, 1993; Furnham & Kirkcaldy, 1996; Kirkcaldy, Shephard, & Furnham, 1994; Strickland, 1978). An active interest in Type A behaviour in the work place continues. Friedman and Rosenman (1974) had demonstrated a relationship between specific behavioural patterns (e.g. highly competitive, impatient, sense of time-urgency, restlessness, pressurized and hostile) believed to characterize the Type A temperament, and an array of psychosomatic ailments, coronary heart disease being of particular concern. The evidence concerning coronary vascular disease is equivocal and if there is indeed a relationship, it appears that the major predictors of CHD lie within the hostility sub component of the Type A personality profile (Blumenthal, McKee, Haney, & Williams, 1980). Berry (1998) argued that organizational psychologists are interested in Type A personality characteristics for two reasons, ‘‘First, the conditions that appear to elicit this behaviour, such as opportunities for achievement, are common aspects of the work environment. Thus, certain individuals may show chronic high arousal and develop an associated cardiovascular problem just by being at work. This is something the organisation does not want. Second, it looks as if type A behaviour results in high work performance and accomplishment. This, of course, is something the organisation does want’’ (p. 439). Kirkcaldy, Cooper, Furnham, and Brown (1993) administered the Occupational Stress Indicator—which measures both type A/B and Locus of Control characteristics—to a large sample of public service managers (police superintendents). They compared four personality categories (Type A and an external or an internal locus of control, and Type B, Internal vs. External locus of control) in terms of job-related stress, and diverse outcome variables (work satisfaction, and physical and psychological health). They found no main effect due to the Type A-B dichotomy, but they did observe pronounced effects attributable to Internal vs. External locus of control. Overall, employees with an External locus showed low work satisfaction scores (especially with regard to organizational processes, personal relationships and organizational design and structure), and
B.D. Kirkcaldy et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 1361–1371
1363
higher occupational stress scores (on the subscales managerial role, career and achievement, and organizational climate). Moreover, individuals with an External locus displayed poorer physical as well as psychological (self-reported) health. Further correlational analyses had revealed that although the overall Type A personality may not be related with outcome variables per se, specific subcomponents of Type A were. For instance, both physical and psychological health were significantly correlated with the style of behaviour (in terms of the subscale assessing the behavioural component and incorporating items associated with speed and abruptness (time-urgency and time consciousness). On the other hand, attitudes to living comprising cognitive components (confidence and work commitment) were more related to work satisfaction. Recent studies have emphasized the need to focus on the elements of time urgency and time awareness facets of Type A personality, drawing similarities between time-consciousness and Hall’s concept of monochronic/polychronic time orientation. The ‘‘stereotype of the Type A/ polychronic manager (is) someone who has three telephones on his (or her) desk, constantly ringing; someone who shouts out orders to scrambling underlings while signing a purchase order with one hand and eating a chili dog with the other. There is evidence that suggests, however, that type A persons may have a more monochronic approach approval to the organisation of time than previously thought’’ (Frei, Racicot, & Travagline, 1999). In a later study, Kirkcaldy et al. (1999) examined relationships between Type A, internality– externality, and emotional distress and perceived health in a sample of European managers (of British and German origin). Those with a Type A/internal personality expressed the most job satisfaction and showed superior physical and psychological health, although their advantage was significant for the British sample only. Those with Types A and B/external characteristics exhibited higher mental illness scores, whereas only those with Type B/external traits reported significantly more physical symptoms (physical ill-health). Those with Type B/internal characteristics appeared to report the best health. Kirkcaldy and Martin (1999) investigated almost 300 nurses in a large Northern Ireland hospital. They found that Type A behaviour emerged as a significant determinant of physical health, in contrast to an internal locus of control, the latter being related more to psychological health, a lower level of occupational stress, and greater job satisfaction, ‘‘especially in terms of organizational processes and personal relationships. . .(and) less stress associated with working climate, managerial role, and career and motivation’’ (p. 10) Consistent with the previous findings, there was no indication of any Type ALocus of Control interaction. A meta-analysis of locus of control studies showed that subjective reports of an internal locus of control were associated with greater work satisfaction, job commitment, involvement, motivation and performance (Spector 1986). Moreover, an internal locus of control was coupled with lower levels of emotional distress, superior physical health (fewer symptoms), and less occupational role stress, absenteeism, and personal fluctuations in mood state. The novel aspects of the present study is the focus on managers in a European country currently hit by severe problems of economic recession, fusions, globalizations, and the enduring impact of re-unification. In our previous studies (Kirkcaldy et al. 1993; Kirkcaldy & Martin, 1999) we analysed the interactions of Type A and locus of control in detail but the Kirkcaldy et al (1993) study had focussed on British public service (police) managers and the Kirkcaldy and Martin (1999) study on (British) nursing personnel (and the latter used different measures taken from diverse questionnaires). Accordingly, we examined these issues in a sample of German managerial staff who
1364
B.D. Kirkcaldy et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 1361–1371
were classified in terms of their personal scores for Type A behaviour and locus of control. Managers are a surprisingly understudied group in the time stress literature. Given that such individuals are among the worst victims of increased hours and pressures at work, this seems an important omission in the literature. On the basis of previous research findings, we hypothesized that a person with a Type A personality and an external locus of control would experience greater stress and have less job satisfaction when employed in a managerial role. This would reflect difficulties in persuading other employees to meet the deadlines which they had imposed upon themselves, and a feeling of inability to correct the situation when self-imposed goals were not met. Conversely, the interactive effects of Type A and Locus of Control would be small when compared with the main effects of a Type A personality and more particularly, the locus of Control. In accordance with previous studies (Kirkcaldy et al. 1993; Kirkcaldy & Martin, 1999) we adopted the taxonomy proposed by Nowack and Sassenrath (1980), generating four classes of individuals —A/I, A/E, B/I and B/E/E. We predicted that those with A/I characteristics would express the least job stress and the greatest work satisfaction (and that these differences would be most apparent in those areas associated with working and organisational climate, as well as interpersonal relationships), also reporting less physical and psychological illness than those in the other three groups (particularly B/E). Secondly, the A/E group would display the most occupational stress and the least satisfaction with their work, giving more frequent reports of illness, with the B/I group showing the greatest mental and physical health.
2. Methods 2.1. Participants A group of 332 managerial level staff (n=208, 72.7% men and 37.3% women, aged 18–65 years) were recruited from diverse organizations in the public and private sectors throughout Germany, in accordance with a protocol approved by the institutional committee on human experimentation. The average age was 47 years (sample distribution: 21–30 years 20.5%, 31–40 years 23.1%, 41–50 years 28.6%, 51–60 years 22.0% and >60 years 5.9%). The managers were responsible for an average of between 7 and 40 personnel, and were mainly in the administrative and industrial sector, as well as medical management. Data were collected over a 9 month period from 1 June 1999 until 30 March 2000, using the pressure management indicator (PMI). Questionnaires were distributed with stamped and addressed envelopes. Generally, they were to be returned to the International Centre for the Study of Occupational and Mental Health (for the Older Federal States). The response rate was very high (over 80%) because only those who had expressed an interest in the project were supplied with the questionnaires. Subjects were allowed to complete the inventory in their own time. They were not paid for participation, but they were debriefed wherever possible, and a free individualized case-report narrative regarding their occupational stress profiles was offered if requested. Each completed a battery of questionnaires (the PMI) covering job stressors, job satisfaction, physical and mental health, in addition to traditional questionnaires for assessment of type A behaviour and locus of control.
B.D. Kirkcaldy et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 1361–1371
1365
2.2. Questionnaire The PMI was derived from the Occupational Stress Indicator (OSI) of Cooper, Sloan, and Williams (1988). The PMI is more reliable, and substantially shorter than the OSI (Williams & Cooper, 1998; Williams, Kirkcaldy, & Cooper, 1999). It provides an integrated measure of job satisfaction, organizational satisfaction, organizational security and organizational commitment. In addition, it provides outcome scales to assess physical (physical symptoms and exhaustion) and psychological well-being (anxiety depression, resilience and worry). Occupational stress variables include pressure originating from workload and social relationships, recognition, organizational climate, the extent of personal responsibility, managerial role, home–work balance, and daily hassles. Finally, moderator variables are included such as Type A behaviour (drive and impatience ‘‘need for urgency’’), locus of control (decision latitude, personal influence) and coping strategies (problem focus such as ‘‘planning ahead and time management’’; social support, and life–work balance). Subject responses to the multiple choice questionnaire were scored on a Likert Scale (possible range 1–6). The robustness of the PMI has been tested extensively by item and confirmatory factor analysis. The internal consistencies were satisfactory (varying from +0.64 for daily hassles, to +0.89 for job satisfaction). Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the PMI offered a significant improvement on the original OSI (Williams, 1996). Data for job stressors, job satisfaction, physical and mental health were analysed by 22 ANOVA, based on the subjects’ combinations of type A and locus of control scores.
3. Results Among the present sample of 332 subjects, the mean score (S.D.) for Type A was 36.04.0, with little skewing about the mean cut-off point. The mean PR (Percentile) for the sample was 58.0, relative to population norms of 50, suggesting that our sample on average had Type A scores somewhat above those for the general population. The median score for internal locus of control in the sample was 31, again showing little skewing and a mean score of 31.54.6 (PR 63.9 when compared with the general population). Two Type A/B and locus of control (internal/external) groups were generated, using splitting below and above 36.0 for Type A and 31.5 for locus of control (n=119 Type B internals; n=83 Type B externals; n=69 Type A externals; and n=85 Type A internals). The correlation between scores for a Type A personality and an internal Locus of Control was positive and significant, albeit the magnitude of the correlation was quite small (r=+0.17, P<0.01). This was similar to the findings in other studies (Kirkcaldy & Martin, 1999; Kirkcaldy et al., 1993). 3.1. Relationships to job stressors Results of the 22 ANOVA are summarized in Table 1. Overall, there was no indication of a significant interaction between personality type and locus of control [lambda=0.97, F(8, 345)=1.41, P> 0.05]. Across all job stress subscales, the lowest levels of job stress scores were reported by individuals with a combination of Type B personality and an Internal locus of control. A Type-A personality was related to higher levels of perceived job stress across many subscales,
1366
B.D. Kirkcaldy et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 1361–1371
Table 1 22 ANOVA of job stressor scores, based on personality type (A/B) and locus of control (External/Internal, E/I)a
Job stressors Workload Relationships Recognition Organisation climate Responsibility Managerial role Home/work balance Daily hassles
AE
AI
BE
BI
F (locus of control E/I)
F (Type A/B)
F (Type A/Blocus E/I)
19.77 29.97 13.09 14.20 12.73 10.73 17.55 11.96
20.17 26.80 11.25 12.73 12.13 11.60 16.33 12.48
19.19 27.04 12.18 12.87 12.80 10.88 16.58 11.80
18.23 23.89 10.24 12.12 11.57 10.71 14.23 11.10
0.18 11.18*** 20.02*** 9.93** 4.35* 0.66 7.83** 0.06
3.60 (*) 9.54** 5.16* 7.64** 0.79 0.71 5.79* 4.59*
0.31 0.99 0.91 0.30 0.58 0.23 0.38 0.09
Levels of statistical significance: * P< ***; **, P< ***; *** P< ***(high scores indicate greater levels of job-related stress). Bold print signifies the highest group mean score; italic print signifies the lowest group score. a The last three columns summarize F scores (1, 352) for personality type, locus of control and their interaction.
including interpersonal relationships, recognition, organizational climate, home–work balance and daily hassles, but it did not appear to be associated with the subscales personal responsibility (taking responsibility for managing and supervising other people), and managerial role (assuming responsibility for personal actions and decisions). There was no relationship between an internal locus of control and intrinsic workload (the amount or difficulty of the work dealt with), managerial role, or daily hassles (day to day irritants and aggravations in the workplace). On the other hand, scores for the remaining five sub-scales of stress differed significantly between individuals with an internal, and those with an external locus of control. Specifically, relationships, recognition (the extent to which people feel they need to have their achievements recognized), organizational climate, and home–work balance were stressors reported more frequently by managers with an external locus of control. The magnitude of effect sizes (BESD, using Rosenthal’s r) distinguishing low and high locus of control groups were for recognition 0.232, relationships 0.176, organizational climate 0.166, home–work balance 0.148, and responsibility 0.110. In contrast, the effect sizes for a type A personality were relationships 0.162, organizational climate 0.145, home–work balance 0.127, recognition 0.120, and daily hassles 0.114. 3.2. Job satisfaction The second stage of our analysis was the computation of four separate 22 ANOVAs, using the four subscales of work satisfaction as dependent variables and locus of control (E/I) and personality type A/B as the main effect variables (Table 2). All of the main effects of locus of control were highly statistically significant (magnitudes of effect size, using Rosenthal’s r, ranged from 0.201 (organizational satisfaction) through to 0.392 (organizational security). Of significant effects due to a Type A personality (organizational satisfaction and organizational security), those with an internal locus of control proved to be the most satisfied group; in contrast, those with a Type A personality and an external locus of control were the least satisfied in terms of
1367
B.D. Kirkcaldy et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 1361–1371
Table 2 22 ANOVA of job satisfaction scores, based on personality type (A/B) and locus of control (External/Internal, E/I)a
Satisfaction at work Job satisfaction Organizational satisfaction Organizational security Organizational commitment
AE
AI
BE
BI
F (locus of control locus E/I)
F (Type A/B)
F (Type A/B control locus E/I)
23.70 17.71 16.54 20.09
28.09 21.08 19.81 22.35
25.35 20.20 18.19 20.57
27.53 21.11 20.55 22.06
52.92*** 14.83*** 63.75*** 31.96***
1.44 5.14* 11.26*** 0.08
6.00* 4.93* 1.62 1.37
Levels of statistical significance: * P< ***; **, P< ***; *** P <*** (high scores indicate increased work satisfaction across all subscales). Bold print signifies the highest group mean score; italic print signifies the lowest group score. a The three columns on the right summarize F scores (1,352) for personality type, locus of control and their interaction.
organizational satisfaction and security. The size of the main effects for Type A ranged from 0.120 (organizational satisfaction) to 0.176 (organizational security). Two interactive effects were also statistically significant (1) job satisfaction, and (2) organizational satisfaction. Job satisfaction is substantially greater among individuals with an internal locus of control than in those with an external locus. On the other hand, subjectively reported job satisfaction is less for Type A than for Type B personalities. Personnel with an internal locus of control enjoy higher levels of satisfaction in the way the organisation is structured and the way it works compared with their counterparts with an external locus. The lower level of subjectively reported satisfaction among those with an external locus of control is very much less pronounced for Type B than for Type A personalities. 3.3. Physical and mental health The next analyses focussed on the outcomes of physical and mental health, and their respective subscales (Table 3). None of the subscales showed any evidence of Type ALocus of Control interactions. The profiles of Type A personality and locus of control both appeared to be related to physical health. Individuals with an internal locus reported substantially better physical health than their counterparts with an external locus. Furthermore, individuals with a Type B personality reported superior health to Type A individuals. These differences were found for both sub-components of physical well-being, physical symptoms (degree of calmness in terms of physical tension, or uncomfortable feelings, for example shortness of breath, muscle tremor or eye twitching, and prickling sensations or twinges in various parts of the body) and energy level (extent of energy and vitality, for example feeling unaccountably tired or exhausted, reluctant to get up in the morning, lack of energy, and difficulty in sleeping). The magnitude of effect sizes differentiating an external from an internal locus of control ranged from 0.200 (physical symptoms) to 0.220 (energy level). Conversely, the size of effects distinguishing type A vs. B personalities were 0.118 for both physical symptoms and energy level As regards, mental health, a Type A personality was associated only with confidence level (how worried you are). The Type A sub-group was significantly more worried, for example, ‘‘When the
1368
B.D. Kirkcaldy et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 1361–1371
Table 3 22 ANOVA of job stressor scores, based on personality type (A/B) and locus of control (External/Internal, E/I)a
Physical health Physical symptoms Energy level
AE
AI
BE
BI
F- locus of control
14.28 14.54
14.98 15.97
14.50 15.10
16.08 17.33
14.66*** 17.86***
F-Type A
F - Type Acontrol
4.93* 4.96*
0.14 0.36
3.58 (*) 1.30 18.80***
0.96 0.25 0.86
F (1, 356) locus of control Mental health State of mind Resilience Confidence
19.58 13.29 8.68
21.73 12.72 9.42
20.51 13.29 9.88
22.71 13.19 10.53
18.46*** 2.58 6.82**
The three columns on the right summarize F scores (1,356) for personality type, locus of control and their interaction. a Levels of statistical significance: * P< ***; **, P< ***; *** P<*** (high scores reflect superior health outcome). Bold print signifies the highest group mean score; italic print signifies the lowest group score.
pressure starts to mount at work, I cannot find sufficient store or reserve of energy which I can call on when needed to spur me into action’’, ‘‘When colleagues and friends behave in an aloof way towards me, I tend to worry about what I may have done to offend them as opposed to just dismissing it’’. Conversely, locus of control, although unrelated to resilience (ability to bounce back from setbacks or problems), was significantly related to both confidence level and state of mind (level of mental well-being) for example, ‘‘During an ordinary working day, are there times when you feel unsettled and upset though the reasons for this might not always be clearly obvious?’’ ‘‘Are there times at work when the things you have got to deal with simply become too much and you feel so overtaxed that you think you are cracking up?’’ Overall, a Type A personality seems to be most associated with the worrying component of mental health, in contrast to an internal locus of control which is more coupled with the state of mind (mental tension). The difference in effect sizes between those with Internal and External loci, using Rosenthal’s estimates, were 0.138 (confidence) and 0.223 (state of mind). On the other hand, differences between Type A and B ranged from 0.100 (state of mind) to 0.225 (confidence).
4. Discussion The results of this study are comparable with previous studies in this program, despite the fact that we used slightly different tests on a different population group. This certainly gives one confidence in the robustness of the effects which have been demonstrated. The current sample was drawn predominantly from managers in Germany, and the findings do not necessarily apply to other segments of the labour force. Indeed, the mean scores for type A personality and locus of control differed in the anticipated directions from the population norms (a predominance of type A personality and an internal locus of control; type A/I). It seems highly likely that managers are
B.D. Kirkcaldy et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 1361–1371
1369
recruited in part for these characteristics, and in part for their ability to handle the stresses one might normally associate with such a combination of personality characteristics. In keeping with our initial hypotheses, individuals with a Type B personality reported less stress than those with a Type A personality. However, the conflicts and stresses that were noted reflected inter-relationships in the organization and at home, rather than the fulfillment of personal and managerial responsibilities. Also in keeping with our hypotheses, perceived levels of stress were greater for those with an external locus of control. Again, the focus was on inter-relationships rather than the intrinsic workload associated with the task. It was noticeable from Table 1 that the locus of control had a more powerful impact than the Type A/B continuum. These results are in accordance with previous studies (Furnham & Drakeley, 1993). It seems likely that the differences in perceived stress noted earlier would also have an impact on job satisfaction, and Table 2 suggests that this is indeed the case. Individuals with a Type A personality tended to be more dissatisfied with their jobs in terms of organization; however, job satisfaction and job commitment showed no effects of Type A/B behavioural characteristics. Likewise an external locus of control had a negative impact on all aspects of job satisfaction, as might be anticipated from the higher levels of perceived stress in this sub-group. Once again, locus of control was the more powerful of the two variables. 4.1. Impacts on physical and mental health It seems likely that a high level of perceived stress and a lack of job satisfaction would in turn affect health, and again the data bear out this hypothesis. Reported physical and mental health were both greater in Type B than in Type A individuals, and reported health was also greater in those with an internal rather than an external locus of control. This conclusion must, of course, be tempered by the constraint that we are here relying on subjective reports, and it may be that personality type and locus of control influence symptom-reporting (Pennebaker, 1992) as well as clinically observable physical and mental health. The present analysis was based upon a four-way classification of personnel. However, it seems likely that the adverse effects of a given personality combination will be most apparent at the extremes of the personality distribution, and there thus remains scope for defining limits of Type A and external locus characteristics that would allow successful employment without negative effects upon health. Based on previous research in the area we predicted that A type Externals would show most stress and least satisfaction and B Type Internals least stress and most satisfaction. Most but not all the results confirmed this hypothesis. For instance in half of the eight job stress factors the A type externals did score highest while on ALL of the factors the B type Internals did score lowest. Similarly for the Satisfaction factors the A type Externals were lowest on each of the four factors while the B type internals were highest on half the factors. Indeed with only one exception the Locus of Control part of the hypotheses was confirmed: Internals are less stressed and more satisfied than Externals. But can the results throw any light on whether A type behaviour patterns are desirable in managers? Few would argue there are many benefits of having an internal locus of control but there are mixed findings with the A Type pattern. The results certainly suggest that A type managers report more stress which is unlikely to be good. Whether they themselves create the stress, or are simply hypersensitive to it, or are willing to report it is not clear though the latter
1370
B.D. Kirkcaldy et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 1361–1371
explanation is unlikely. But A type managers, at least internal A Type managers do report more job satisfaction and more commitment. What the results suggest is that A type interacts with other factors with respect to positive outcomes but not negative outcomes. That is, if an A Type manager has an Internal locus of control and works in an organization that empowers employees and recognizes dedication and commitment they can be happy. On the other hand it maybe just part of the A type behaviour pattern to over report job satisfaction. The results certainly seem to suggest that despite the evidence that A type managers work harder and more frenetically, there are few long-term benefits to either the individual or the organization of having an A, as opposed to a B type behaviour pattern. The optimum personality for a company manager is an important issue to resolve, and findings of the present type merit combining with information on organizational effectiveness and longterm clinical health. It may be that despite the greater level of stress that they experience, Type A individuals remain more effective plant managers than those with a Type B personality. Particularly if the Type A characteristics are not excessively developed, an increase in stress level may merely bring the person concerned to a eu-stress level, where occupational performance is optimized. The goal of selection must be to match personality with task demands, so that this optimum is realized. An external locus of control is typically associated with employees who have little access to power, mobility, or opportunity for material advancement. On the other hand, it is possible to change the expectancies of both managers and employees from an external to an internal locus of control through empowerment and other strategies; this in turn impacts on their health, productivity and satisfaction. The present study was cross-sectional in nature and future studies would profit from a longitudinal design. The PMI shares the structural form of its predecessor the OSI, but it is not identical, particularly with respect to factor structure and labeling of subscales. Thus, direct comparisons with previous research is not strictly possible. Managers show heightened type A and internal locus of control scores relative to the general population, and this may attenuate any relationships between Type A behaviour and outcome variables. Type A is a complex multifaceted dimension, and there is evidence that the major determinant of health resides in the hostility subcomponent of Type A,which is not evaluated in the PMI questionnaire. Physical health and self reports of health are imperfectly correlated; hence it remains questionable how valid an index of actual physical health is given by such measures. The OSI mental health outcome scales show evidence of a dual nature, a characteristic which is probably shared with the PMI: the two dimensions are more accurately labeled negative affectivity and positive affect and they are theoretically independent.
5. Conclusions Type A personality characteristics and an external locus of control appear to induce high levels of stress, with negative consequences for job satisfaction and physical and mental health. The aims of personnel selection should be to match personality to task demands, so that the level of stress is such as to optimize the individual’s occupational performance. Alternatively, by psychometric identification of individuals who may be particularly susceptible to occupational stress,
B.D. Kirkcaldy et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 1361–1371
1371
it may be possible to introduce stress-management programmes or on-site counselling tailored to cope with the potential stressors. References Arnold, J., Robertson, I., & Cooper, C. L. (1991). Work psychology: understanding human behavior in the workplace. London: Pitman. Berry, L. (1998). Psychology at work. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Blumenthal, J., McKee, D., Haney, T., & Williams, R. (1980). Task incentives, type A behavior pattern, and verbal problem solving performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 101–111. Cooper, C. L., Sloan, S., & Williams, S. (1988). Occupational stress indicator manual. Windsor: NFER-Nelson. Frei, R. L., Racicot, B., & Travagline, A. (1999). The impact of monochronic and Type A behaviour patterns on research productivity and stress. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14, 5–98. Friedman, M., & Rosenman, R. (1974). Type A behaviour and your heart. New York: Knopf. Furnham, A. (1999). The psychology of behaviour at work. Hive, Sussex: Psychologist Press. Furnham, A., & Drakeley, R. (1993). Work locus of control and perceived organisational climate. European Work and Organisational Psychologist, 3, 1–9. Furnham, A., & Kirkcaldy, B. D. (1996). The health beliefs and behaviours of orthodox and complementary medicine clients. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 25( 1), 49–61. Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. (1992). Behaviour in organizations. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Kirkcaldy, B. D., Cooper, C. L., & Furnham, A. (1999). The relationship between Type A, internality-externality, emotional distress and perceived health. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 223–235. Kirkcaldy, B. D., Cooper, C. L., Furnham, A., & Brown, L. (1993). Personality, job satisfaction and well-being among public sector (police) managers. In: Special Issue (Bartram, D.; Ed.), The Validity and Utility of Personality Assessment in Occupational Psychology. European Review of Applied Psychology, 43(3), 241–248. Kirkcaldy, B. D., Furnham, A., & Cooper, C. L. (1994). Police personality, job satisfaction and health. Studia Psychologica, 36(1), 55–63. Kirkcaldy, B. D., & Martin, T. (1999). Job stress and satisfaction among nurses: Individual differences. Stress Medicine, 16, 77–89. Kirkcaldy, B. D., Shephard, R. J., & Furnham, A. (1994). Attitudes towards health and illness among exercisers and non-exercisers. Stress Medicine, 10, 21–26. Nowack, K., & Sassenrath, J. (1980). Coronary-prone behaviour, locus of control and anxiety. Psychological Reports, 47, 359–369. Pennebaker, J. (1992). Putting stress into words: Health, linguistics and therapeutic interventions. Washington: APA Paper. Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal vs. External control reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80 (1, Whole No. 609). Spector, P. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy and participation at work. Human relations, 11, 1005–1016. Strickland, B. (1978). Internal–External expectancies and health-related behaviour. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 6, 1192–1211. Vincent, C., & Furnham, A. (1977). Complementary medicine. A research perspective. Chichester and New York: Wiley. Williams, S. (1996). A critical review and further development of the occupational stress indicator. Doctoral thesis. University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. Williams, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1998). Measuring occupational stress. Developments of the Pressure Management Indicator. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3( 4), 306–321. Williams, S., Kirkcaldy, B. D., & Cooper, C. L. (1999). German version of the pressure management indicator. Harrogate, UK: Resources Systems.