Personality and decision-making in public administration: the five-factor model in cultural perspective

Abstract

Using a cross-sectional survey of 254 Turkish district governors, this study assesses the impact of personality on decision-making among public managers. The research evaluates self-reported results from the Five-Factor Model of personality and the Decision-Making Questionnaire of the psychology literature. The findings suggest that Openness, Conscientiousness, and Extraversion are important in the analysis of decision-making subjects, tasks, and contexts, respectively. Departing from previous research, the analysis here suggests that culture and structure are important factors in explaining personality and decision-making in public administration.

Points for practitioners

This study offers policy implications for the recruitment, performance appraisal, training, and assignment of practitioners in the public service. Personality assessments can be used as a valuable tool during the evaluation of public officials under consideration for recruitment, appointment, and promotion. Matching the personalities of potential candidates to positions requiring comparable qualifications has important organizational, personnel, and financial implications. Our research also suggests that decision-making and personality should also account for social, cultural, and organizational differences in their applications.

Keywords

decision-making developing countries international administration public administration

Introduction

Decision-making is a topic of interest for many disciplines, such as psychology, politics, public administration, economics, neuroscience, and military sciences. While organizational decision-making and group decision-making have traditionally received more attention, studies on individual differences in decision-making – decision-making behavior and the factors that affect it – are increasingly common. As an essential characteristic affecting decision-making and managerial performance, personality research provides credible evidence for real-world performance (Hogan et al., 1996). Personality is the characteristic of a person that contains a set of traits, models of thought, feelings, and behaviors (McAdams, 2008). Indeed, personality assessments are often used as valuable tools for aiding decision-making and other management functions, such as the recruitment, selection, training, and placement of the workforce.

Studies of individual differences in decision-making enhance the quality of decision-making as much as studies of organizational and group decision-making (Bazerman and Moore, 2009; Lipshitz and Strauss, 1997). Focusing on individuals, particularly managers, has the potential to shed light on important aspects of governmental and organizational decision-making (McKinney and Howard, 1998). Understanding these factors and individual differences – and analyzing their natures – is at the core of the decision-making literature.

To this end, the present research seeks to narrow the gap by analyzing the effects of personality on executive decision-making in the public sector; specifically, the decision-making behavior of provincial district governors in the Republic of Turkey. Indeed, the findings presented here offer a unique perspective on the influence that personality has on decision-making in a different social, cultural, and organizational environment. Utilizing the Five-Factor Model (FFM) and the Decision-Making Questionnaire (DMQ), this study introduces psychometric analysis of decision-making to the public sector through a survey of senior-level executives in Turkish provincial government. First, the article examines Turkish civil administration in order to provide the context. The discussion then reviews relevant theoretical developments in personality and decision-making; namely, the FFM and DMQ. The article then establishes a set of hypotheses for evaluation. In order to test the hypotheses, the present study employs ordinary least squares (OLS) multiple regression. The methods section of the article discusses data collection, measurement, descriptive findings, and multivariate analyses. Finally, the results and discussion sections offer concluding remarks and avenues for further exploration.

Turkish civil administration

The term civil administrator refers to the chief civil authority of a specific jurisdiction (province and/or district), who works on behalf of the Turkish central government. Civil administrators are the core managers in the Turkish public service. They consist of governors, deputy governors, district governors, civil inspectors, district governors who work in the central units of the Turkish Ministry of Internal Affairs, and candidates for district governorships.

Turkey is divided into provinces and districts based on economic, demographic, and security concerns. Each province (total of 81) is divided into districts (total of 951), which consist of villages. The focus of the present study is on the district governor class of civil administrators. As the chief executive officers of the district, district governors are responsible for overseeing and supervising public services that are under the control of the central government, such as education, health, public security, agriculture, and rural development. Their position as the senior managers of public services in districts affords them great latitude in the decision-making process. As such, their experience and status with the district government offers a unique and substantive capacity to shed light on decision-making in the public sector. District governors make determinations affecting more than just their immediate work group, offering a distinctive vantage point in the assessment of personality and decision-making. Additionally, one would expect district governors to be more discerning of the implications of the decisions that they face as opposed to rank-and-file employees.

Factors affecting decision-making

Lizarraga et al. (2009) offer one of the more recent and validated assessments of decision-making in the form of the DMQ. Table 1 provides an overview of the factors, sub-factors, and questions associated with the DMQ. According to Lizarraga et al. (2009), decision-making is broadly affected by three factors: task factors, subject factors, and context factors.

Table 1.

DMQ: factors and sub-factors

Uncertainty (Task)	Overcome doubtful aspects Quickly change my preferences if things go wrong Realize that circumstances may change Become aware if the decision leads to novelties Appraise personal risk involved in the decision Know what the decision involves
Time/Money Pressure (Task)	Evaluate the available time in which to make my decision Organize the actions depending on the time Act quickly and precisely Make sure the established times are respected Determine whether costs match the money available Imagine economical options Compare results with time employed Compare results with money spent
Information & Goals (Task)	Study the degree of difficulty of the decision Organize the action sequence if the decision is complex Gather as much information as possible about the decision Discover the key information about the decision Realize which information is lacking Define the desired goals Analyze whether the goals interfere with each other Choose the appropriate actions for the decision
Consequences of Decision (Task)	Foresee the consequences of the decision Overcome the negative consequences Determine whether the consequences have long-term effects Accept responsibility for the decision Determine whether the consequences will affect other people Determine whether the consequences will affect society
Motivation (Subject)	Be motivated to make the decision Be aware of the importance of the decision Keep up my interest during the decision process Be aware of personal achievement involved in the decision Choose the most attractive alternative
Self-regulation (Subject)	Know where I would like to get to Trust my own personal experience Trust my personal capacity to overcome the difficulties Plan the action to be performed Use the strategies that seem the most efficient Monitor all the phases of the decision process Appraise the achievements gained by the decision Identify the errors committed in the choice
Cognition (Subject)	Process the information about the issue to be decided Reflect on the need to make the decision Identify the factors that affect the decision Recall previously employed decision strategies Solve the problems that arise Relate the highest number of aspects of the decision
Emotion (Subject)	Generate emotions that will help me decide Act emotionally calm Overcome moments of fear Control my impulsiveness throughout the decision Foresee feelings of guilt
Social Pressure (Context)	Avoid any conflict with others Make decisions without external pressure Adapt to the pace required by the environment Listen to other people’s opinions about the decision Determine whether the consequences of the decision are socially acceptable Determine whether the decision respects social rules Examine whether social/political ideas affect the decision
Work Pressure (Context)	Discover the relations between work rules and personal interests Follow work rules Comply with the demands of the law Take the goals of the business into account Favor the workers

Note: The items of the questionnaire are rated on a nine-point Likert scale, where 1 stands for not at all important and 9 for very important.

Source: Lizarraga et al. (2009).

Task factors consist of time/money pressure, consequence of decision, information and goals, and uncertainty. Individuals organize their activities and evaluate the results of their decisions according to the time and resources allocated (Adair, 2010; Greenberg and Baron, 2010; Svenson and Maule, 1993). Understanding and predicting present and future consequences of decisions play a critical role in the process as well (Sniezek et al., 1990). Gathering information and establishing goals focus on the importance of having adequate data available and defining specific objectives to appraise task difficulty (Cannon-Bowers and Salas, 2002). Uncertainty is the situation in which decision-makers do not know all the consequences of each alternative, while certainty is the situation in which decision-makers do know all the consequences of each alternative (Render et al., 2009). Uncertainty in decision-making is often interrelated with risk and consequences (Lipshitz and Strauss, 1997).

Subject factors include motivation, self-regulation, cognition, and emotions (Lizarraga et al., 2009). Motivation explains the maintenance of interest and desire during decision-making and its successive phases (Bandura, 1997). Self-regulation refers to the planning, monitoring, and evaluating of results before, during, and after a decision (Dreyfus, 1997; Miller and Byrnes, 2001). Cognition focuses on how individuals process information, reason about the steps to be taken, and resolve the difficulties that may emerge during the decision-making process (Orasanu and Connolly, 1993). Emotions set an appropriate temperament for decision-making in order to attain desired objectives (Mellers et al., 1999).

Context factors refer to characteristics, such as social, community, and work environments, in which decisions are made (Lizarraga et al., 2009). Social pressures and work pressures are exogenous concerns during the decision-making process (Flannery et al., 1999). For instance, although individuals in a group know a decision to be wrong, they accept the decisions made by the group for reasons such as conformity and fear of exclusion from the group (Rollinson, 2008; Sherif, 1936). There may also be a tendency to minimize conflict and reach consensus without sufficiently testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. Pressures for conformity restrict the thinking of the group, bias analysis, promote simplistic and stereotyped thinking, and stifle individual creative and independent thought (Janis, 1971). Work pressures, such as workload, working hours, work problems, employee knowledge, skill, expertise, and training, may also factor into the decision-making process (Van Emmerik, 2008).

Assessing personality and decision-making with the FFM

Personality plays an important role in both human performance (Barrick et al., 2002; Dudley et al., 2006; Salgado, 1997) and the decision-making process (Davis et al., 2007). Personality research examines psychological processes and focuses on psychological differences and similarities between individuals (Barenbaum and Winter, 1999). Accordingly, it is one of the most important domains of individual differences, offering reliable evidence for the study of human behavior.

Research has placed considerable time and energy into the FFM as a tool for explaining personality. As a descriptive model, the FFM provides a replicable, integrated, comprehensive, and efficient model for the investigation of personality (Caprara and Cervone, 2000; Cooper et al., 2012: 398; McCrae and John, 1992; Schmitt et al., 2007). Alternatives such as the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), while popular, have fallen out of favor among psychologists due to critical theoretical and measurement problems (McRae and Costa, 1997). The FFM is a hierarchical model that explains personality using five broad traits (the Big Five): Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism.

Below are our hypotheses for each of the five personality factors and the three outcome variables associated with decision-making from the DMQ. To maximize clarity and readability, we refer to our hypotheses formally after discussing each factor referring to the predicted outcome on decision-making. Table 2 provides an overview of the Big Five.

Table 2.

Overview of the Big Five personality traits

Big Five trait	Characteristics
Openness	Being imaginative, cultured, curious, original, broad-minded, intelligent, and artistically sensitive
Conscientiousness	Being dependable, careful, thorough, responsible, organized, hardworking, achievement-oriented, and persevering
Extraversion	Being sociable, gregarious, assertive, active, powerful, and talkative
Agreeableness	Being courteous, flexible, trusting, good-natured, cooperative, forgiving, soft-hearted, and tolerant
Neuroticism	Being anxious, depressed, angry, embarrassed, emotional, worried, and insecure

Source: Wilfling et al. (2011: 4).

Openness refers to the tendency of a person to seek new experiences and intellectual pursuits. Those who display a higher level of Openness are more likely to be imaginative, autonomous, intellectually curious, creative, original, interested in art, and eager to try new things (John and Srivastava, 1999). Given that high scores on task-oriented behavior are associated with having clear concepts and feeling safe when making a decision, the importance of considering the time and money available to carry out the decision, and the importance of adequate and accurate information on all aspects of the task and goals precisely (Lizarraga et al., 2009), we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): District governors exhibiting higher levels of Openness are more likely to be task factor-oriented when making decisions.

Conscientiousness refers to a person’s tendency to act within his/her personal environment. A person who exhibits a higher level of Conscientiousness is more likely to be achievement-oriented, responsible, organized, plan-oriented and hardworking (John and Srivastava, 1999). Provided the importance that subject factors place on engaging in the decision with an interest and a desire to resolve any difficulties, effectively managing the stages of the process before, during, and after the decision, thinking reflectively and creatively about the decision, retrieving previous knowledge, and selecting appropriate strategies (Lizarraga et al., 2009), we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 2 (H2): District governors exhibiting higher levels of Conscientiousness are more likely to be subject factor-oriented when making decisions.

Extraversion refers to the tendency to be sociable. A person exhibiting higher levels of Extraversion are more likely to be assertive, active, talkative, and experienced (John and Srivastava, 1999). Accordingly, context factors focus on the importance of taking into account the pressure of the social environment and other people in both personal and business decisions (Lizarraga et al., 2009). Therefore, we propose that:

Hypothesis 3 (H3): District governors exhibiting higher levels of Extraversion are more likely to be context factor-oriented when making decisions.

Agreeableness refers to the tendency of a person to adjust his or her behavior to suit others. This type of behavior consists of such qualities as altruism, trust, gentleness, and modesty. Those higher on the Agreeableness scale are characterized by a tendency to be flexible, cooperative, tolerant, and soft-hearted (John and Srivastava, 1999). An emphasis on subject factors in the decision-making process promotes positive emotions about the decision process since they help to achieve the desired objectives (Lizarraga et al., 2009). As such, we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 4 (H4): District governors exhibiting higher levels of Agreeableness are more likely to be subject factor-oriented when making decisions.

Neuroticism refers to a person’s tendency to have negative emotions, such as nervousness, anxiousness, insecurity, hostility, and sadness. Such feelings are generally indicators of a person’s weaker psychology and physiology (John and Srivastava, 1999). While we positively associate extraversion with pressure from the social environment, we also consider the impact of pressure from the work environment when making a decision that can directly affect the organization (Lizarraga et al., 2009). Therefore, we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 5 (H5): District governors exhibiting higher levels of Neuroticism are more likely to be context factor-oriented when making decisions.

Factors affecting the decision-making process may also vary according to the decision-makers’ gender and age. According to Gill et al. (1987), women are more likely to be affected by the environment, to search for more information, and to need more time before making a decision. Likewise, Byrnes et al. (1999), Croson and Gneezy (2009), and Harris et al. (2006) assert that women are more risk-averse and competition-averse than men, and their social preferences are more context-bound than those of men. On the other hand, men are more realistic, positive, and objective (Wood, 1990). Pacini and Epstein (1999) suggest that men identify themselves as being more rational decision-makers, whereas women identify themselves as being good at experiential processing.

Age is another important variable that influences the decision-making process. Age refers to experience and competence gained from maturity (Hess et al., 2005; Meyer et al., 2007). Age affects memory, the cognitive process, and risk perceptions. Accordingly, as decision-makers become older, they do not need as much time to make decisions. They are more conservative and cautious (Hooker, 2002), focus more on long-term goals (Bryant and Dunford, 2008), and think intuitively (Peters et al., 2007).

Another factor that influences decision-making is an organization’s size. According to Blau (1970), larger organizations are typically associated with complex structures and work heterogeneity. Higher organizational size decreases the managerial component. Accordingly, smaller units in an organization have a greater impact in the decision-making process than larger ones (Duhaime and Baird, 1987). Furthermore, Frederickson and Iaquinto (1989) and Child (1972) argue that there is a positive association between organizational size and rationality in the decision-making process (see also Brudney et al., 1999).

Data and methodology

The Big Five Inventory (BFI) and DMQ were employed by means of a self-administered cross-sectional questionnaire via the Qualtrics Survey Program in late August 2013. The target population and the unit of analysis in the study are Turkish district governors (N = 858). In order to reach the district governors, personnel data of the Turkish Ministry of Internal Affairs’ Directorate General of Human Resources were used. Although there are 951 districts, only 858 of them had district governors as of 15 May 2013. Ultimately, the survey reached 844 district governors on duty. A total of 254 survey responses were received (23.3% response rate), and 54 of those were eliminated because of incompleteness. The remaining 200 responses were utilized in the data analysis.

Six of the respondents (3%) were females and 194 (97%) of the district governors were males. Of the district governors who responded to the research: 53% (107) were under the age of 36; 31% (63) were between 36 and 45; 14% (28) were between 46 and 55; and 1% (3) were between 56 and 65. A majority of the respondents being under 36 suggests a generational divide among the district governorship. With regard to education: 91 (46%) of the district governors had completed a bachelor’s degree; 98 (49%) had completed a master’s degree; and 11 (6%) had graduated with a PhD or its equivalent. Of the district governors surveyed: 60% (116) indicated that they were responsible for supervising between 500 and 1000 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees in their jurisdiction; 21% (40) indicated responsibility for 1001–2500; 8% (16) supervised between 2501 and 5000; 4% (7) supervised between 5001 and 10,000; and 7% (14) supervised more than 10,000 personnel.

Tables 3 and 4 provide descriptive statistics for the FFM and DMQ questionnaires. The interpretation of the scores according to the survey instruments is also provided under each factor for further clarification. The results for the DMQ show that all decision-making factors are relatively important among the Turkish district governors surveyed. The mean score for task factors (M = 210.3) suggests an above-average emphasis on items such as risk, time/money, consequences, and information in decision-making. Likewise, respondents indicated an above-average appreciation for motivation, self-regulation, cognition, and emotion in decision-making (subject factor M = 170.4). Context factors (social pressure and work pressure) were also of importance (M = 83.1).

Table 3.

Descriptive statistics for DMQ

Variable	Mean	Std. Dev.	Min.	Max.
Task (Low score is 1–84; average is 85–168; high is 169–252)	210.3098	22.80966	137	252
Subject (Low score is 1–72; average is 73–144; high is 145–216)	170.4286	20.57967	119	215
Context (Low score is 1–36; average is 37–72; high is 73–108)	83.15104	9.642462	54	103

Table 4.

Descriptive statistics for the BFI

Variable	Mean	Std. Dev.	Min.	Max.
Openness (Scores range from 10 to 50)	39.85263	5.756006	17	50
Conscientiousness (Scores range from 9 to 45)	33.54592	5.771987	14	45
Extraversion (Scores range from 8 to 40)	27.43229	5.207284	12	40
Agreeableness (Scores range from 9 to 45)	31.76684	5.239328	10	45
Neuroticism (Scores range from 8 to 40)	21.3299	6.208337	8	39

According to Table 4, the majority of Turkish district governors exhibit high levels of Openness (M = 39.8), high levels of Conscientiousness (M = 33.5), average levels of Extraversion (M = 27.4), average levels of Agreeableness (M = 31.7), and low levels of Neuroticism (M = 21.3). The scores of Openness and Conscientiousness indicate an intellectual and achievement orientation among the respondents. Average-level scores of Extraversion and Agreeableness show that characteristics such as flexibility, cooperativeness, tolerance, and sociability are somewhat important. Lower-level Neuroticism scores suggest an emotionally stable public servant group. The large standard deviation for neuroticism suggests greater variability for the factor.

Additionally, we examined the effects of each of the respondent and other sample characteristics (gender, age, tenure, FTE, and education). The correlation between age and scores on both the DMQ and FFM revealed a general lack of significant correlations. Two factors, Context (r = –0.22, p < 0.05) and Conscientiousness (r = 0.21, p < 0.05), showed significant correlations with age, whereas there were no correlations between age and the other scores (task, subject, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism, and Openness). McRae et al.’s (2000) findings from German, British, Czech, Spanish, and Turkish samples also found increases in Conscientiousness with age. Gülgöz (2002: 185) suggests that differences in age observed across cultures may be the result of biological maturation. However, tenure was also significantly correlated with Conscientiousness (r = 0.29, p < 0.01), indicating that experience might also be a determinant. The results for the rest of the characteristics only indicated that education and gender were significantly correlated with Context (respectively, r = 0.17, p < 0.05 and r = 0.18, p < 0.05). Univariate analyses were also conducted, yet the results indicated no main gender effects on any of the DMQ and FFM scores, although females tended to score higher on Extraversion (M = 28.40; SD = 5.98), Agreeableness (M = 32.25; SD = 5.62), Neuroticism (M = 24.00; SD = 7.31), Openness (M = 41.80; SD = 6.50), context (M = 85.00; SD = 14.21), and task (M = 214.67; SD = 18.92) than their male district governor counterparts. The higher scores of females on Neuroticism and Openness are consistent with findings elsewhere that have explored personality across cultures (Costa and McCrae, 1992; Costa et al., 2001). Nonetheless, the small sample of female respondents (3%) may reflect gender biases in the data population.

Data analysis

In order to appreciate the impact that the personality type of district governors has on decision-making factors, a multiple regression analysis was applied, and its results were used to evaluate the hypotheses. Table 5 presents the findings from OLS regressions with p values reported in parentheses.

Table 5.

Modeling the impact of personality on decision-making

Variables	Task factors	Subject factors	Context factors
Personality types
Openness	0.162 (0.433)	0.668 (0.382)*	0.132 (0.167)
Conscientiousness	0.578 (0.411)	0.576 (0.358)*	0.204 (0.158)
Extraversion	0.892 (0.407)**	0.402 (0.366)	0.301 (0.155)**
Agreeableness	0.546 (0.437)	0.131 (0.382)	0.211 (0.172)
Neuroticism	0.041 (0.355)	0.195 (0.309)	0.191 (0.137)
Respondent characteristics
Gender	14.102 (11.481)	11.138 (10.113)	7.578 (4.516)*
Age	−4.278 (4.508)	−7.523 (3.967)*	−3.459 (1.742)**
Tenure	0.402 (0.498)	0.540 (0.437)	0.080 (0.192)
FTE	−1.009 (1.832)	−1.841 (1.69)	−1.076 (0.714)
Education	0.531 (3.268)	1.762 (2.843)	2.755 (1.262)**
R²	0.158	0.173	0.212
F-ratio	2.61***	2.97***	3.89***
N	149	153	156

Notes: Figures are regression coefficients estimated by OLS (with standard errors in parentheses). Confidence interval level is 95%. *p ≤ .10; **p ≤ .05; ***p ≤ .01.

The multiple regression analysis indicates a statistically significant relationship between Openness to experience and subject factors (b = 0.668, p ≤ 0.10). While the results do not support our first hypothesis that district governors who exhibit a higher level of Openness are more likely to be task factor-oriented when making a decision, it does suggest a link between Openness and subject factors (e.g. motivation, self-regulation, cognition, emotion). Perhaps district governors with high Openness scores are more likely to focus on the personal attributes that they bring to the table as opposed to the elements of the task at hand when making a decision. Considering Conscientiousness (b = 0.576, p ≤ 0.10), there is a statistically significant positive relationship between Conscientiousness and subject factors. Consequently, our second hypothesis – that district governors who exhibit a higher level of Conscientiousness are more likely to be subject factor-oriented when making a decision – is supported. The finding here reinforces the idea that district governors may feel that their best assets are themselves. Respondents indicating a strong association with being organized, reliable, and hardworking are likely to put those attributes to work during decision-making. Our third hypothesis – that district governors exhibiting higher levels of Extraversion are more likely to be context factor-oriented when making a decision – is supported in the regression analyses (b = 0.301, p ≤ 0.05). However, we also see a statistically significant positive relationship (b = 0.892, p ≤ 0.05) between Extraversion and task factors. It would seem that the sociable and optimistic tendencies of district governors stand out in the consideration of task-oriented factors (uncertainty, time/money, information/goals, consequences) and the added pressures of society and work.

Unfortunately, we find no evidence of a statistically significant relationship to support our fourth and fifth hypotheses. While the results for the association between Agreeableness and subject factors are in the positive direction, there is no statistically significant relationship. The same is true for Neuroticism and context factors where a positive association is demonstrated but the link is not statistically significant.

Discussion

Our research is one of only two (Cooper et al., 2012; Jiang et al., 2009) that have attempted to assess the role of personality in public management; however, neither of these studies considers decision-making in their overall analysis. While the results of this study are consistent in some facets with past research, they deviate from prior research studies that are often applied within different work (mostly private sector) and cultural environments (mostly Western). While cross-cultural comparisons may highlight commonalities or major differences in personality and decision-making, the interpretation of both types of outcomes requires extreme caution (Gülgöz, 2002: 194).

District governors who exhibit a higher level of Extraversion are likely to be task factor-oriented when making decisions. In addition, decision-makers exhibiting extraversion-like behaviors try to gather more information for seeking quick and practical solutions (Heinström, 2003). They also cope better under time pressures (DeLongis and Holtzman, 2005; Wayne et al., 2004), indicating a problem-focused approach to decision-making (O’Brien and DeLongis, 1996).

In contrast to findings elsewhere (e.g. Heinström, 2003; Milgram and Tenne, 2000), our study demonstrates that district governors who exhibit a higher level of Openness and Conscientiousness are less likely to be task factor-oriented and risk-averse. The results here suggest that district governors who are higher on Openness and Conscientiousness tend to be more focused on subject-related factors. Three possible explanations for this deviation are offered: the nature of task factors and cultural context. As noted earlier, task factors are correlated with the nature of the decision itself, independent of the characteristics of decision-makers (Lizarraga et al., 2009). Interestingly, district governors place a great deal of importance (M = 210) on task factors. The association between personality and task factors may have been limited because of the dominant nature of task factors.

Second, the distinctive features of Turkish public administration may have influenced the results. Turkey has a strong central government and administrative structure. District governors are the chief executive officers in their districts. They are responsible for the administration of public services according to government policies under the supervision of the governor. This indicates limited authority for policymaking, personnel policy, and monetary issues. Districts do not have their own budgets and they are completely dependent on funds from the central government. Accordingly, money, goal orientation, and even time pressure may not exert any influence on district governors when making decisions. Indeed, Emre (2002) found that the bulk of district governors’ work is routine and does not demand any imaginative, original, careful, or organized effort. The majority of district work is allotted to reviewing and signing paperwork and meetings (Emre, 2002). Another supportive argument for this is the higher Conscientiousness scores of district governors (M = 33.5). Conscientiousness is often associated with rational thinking in the decision-making literature (Dewberry et al., 2013; Epstein, 1994). According to Simon (1960), people who think rationally use traditional decision-making techniques, such as habit and clerical routine. District governors often complain about the lack of opportunity for initiative and discretion in their work (Emre, 2002). They were prone to simply follow the rules and regulations when encountering risky and uncertain situations since such behavior eliminates and/or limits risk and uncertainty.

Taken together, the findings in this study suggest that culture and context may be a more important consideration for decision-making than personality types. Turkish culture and the expectations of central administrators may drive district governors to pursue less risk-prone activities, opting instead for routine or incremental decisions (Lindblom, 1959). Similarly, personality traits might be expressed differently in a different social, cultural, and organizational environment (Block, 1968; O’Brien and DeLongis, 1996; Wiggins and Trapnell, 1996). Indeed, the personality profiles of Turkish people are distinctive from those in both Asian and Western cultures (McCrae and Terracciano, 2005).

The results demonstrate that a statistically significant positive relationship exists between both Openness and Conscientiousness with subject factors. Similar to the works of Barrick et al. (1993) and Judge and Ilies (2002), this means that district governors who are higher on Conscientiousness are well-motivated managers. They think before acting, follow the rules, make plans, organize their activities, and set their priorities. Such managers typically exhibit higher productivity (Barrick and Mount, 1991; Judge et al., 1999; Salgado, 1997), and their decision-making patterns are strongly related to rational thinking (Dewberry et al., 2013). Contrary to findings elsewhere that have found no connection between Openness and motivation (Judge and Ilies, 2002), the results here demonstrate a statistically significant positive relationship with Openness and subject factors. One explanation for this finding may be ambition. Higher administrative positions in Turkish government are often filled by the ranks of district governors. While their decisions may often be routine, district governors may be guided by personal achievement and the importance of their positions within the larger Turkish bureaucracy. Moreover, the results with respect to Openness reinforce the notion of emotional stability during decision-making (Dewberry et al., 2013).

The results regarding Neuroticism and subject factors are not surprising. Recall that district governors have a lower level of Neuroticism (M = 21.3). Research suggests that higher levels of Neuroticism prevent motivation (Akerman et al., 2001; Judge and Ilies, 2002), cause poor self-regulation (Judge and Ilies, 2002), and negatively affect cognitive abilities (Robinson, 2007).

The results with respect to age and tenure with Conscientiousness suggest that the work environment may be a factor in personality differences. Work environments often bring together people from different backgrounds (Gülgöz, 2002), and as a result of their responsibilities, district governors are forced to interact with these people over time. Being dependable, careful, thorough, responsible, organized, hardworking, achievement-oriented, and persevering – characteristics of Conscientiousness – may prove useful in the public management context. Further, studies that have sampled general populations regarding personality generally link differences to biological determinants (e.g. McCrae and Costa, 1997; Zuckerman, 1995); however, our findings in a public sector environment from a sample of public managers suggest biological (age) and environmental (experience) may also factor into personality differences in the workplace. In terms of decision-making, experience and competence gained from maturity in the decision-making process may lead to more conservative and cautious behavior (Hooker, 2002), being prone to focusing more on goals and long-term consequences (Bryant and Dunford, 2008). The findings indicate that heuristics are acquired from experience, trial and error, common sense, and intuitive judgment (Gigerenzer and Brighton, 2009; Gigerenzer and Todd, 1999; Lipshitz and Strauss, 1997; Peters et al., 2007).

With the exception of Extraversion, the personalities of district governors do not affect context factors. Perhaps district governors who exhibit a higher level of Extraversion can do more tasks under pressure of time and work (DeLongis and Holtzman, 2005; Wayne et al., 2004). They try to gather more information unsystematically and without deep analyses in order to seek quick and practical solutions (Heinström, 2003). Similar to the findings of Carlo et al. (2005), district governors who display higher Extraversion are prone to pro-social behaviors and seek warm and positive social interactions from their superiors and peers.

The levels of Openness and Conscientiousness of district governors (respectively, M = 39.9; M = 33.5) may indicate that district governors who exhibit a higher level of these personality types are less influenced by the environment and other people. Higher levels of Openness may translate to less attention to context factors due to broad-minded, original, autonomous, and non-conforming habits (Van Emmerik, 2008). In a recent survey of Turkish citizens, people indicated a desire for district governors to exhibit greater qualities of neutrality, honesty, closeness to citizens, resistance to political pressure, modesty, and decision-making according to the public interest (Emre, 2002; TIAV, 2013). Possessing problem-solving skills came after all these traits as a desirable quality for district governors. Perhaps there is a disconnect of public access to/communication between district governors and citizens. The lack of significant findings for Openness and Conscientiousness with task factors suggests that thinking ‘outside the box’ when considering policy priorities is not a valuable qualification of district governors.

The results regarding Agreeableness and Neuroticism are not consistent with the literature. Individuals who display higher levels of Agreeableness should be pro-social, seeking warm, positive social interactions, and less interpersonal conflict (Carlo et al., 2005). Social pressure would be expected to affect their decisions, but this did not hold true in our results. Similarly, there is no significant association between district governors who exhibit higher levels of Neuroticism and context factors. Research suggests that neurotic behavior may be easily affected by environmental factors (Campbell, 1990; Heinström, 2003). The lower levels of Neuroticism exhibited by the respondents suggest that district governors may be less prone to social and work influences, demonstrating more collective-like behavior.

The context model results for age suggest a concern for career and promotion expectations over time. Hooker (2002) suggests that as people become older, they are likely to become more conservative and cautious. The findings for women respondents suggest that female district governors may be more likely to be affected by their environment (Gill et al., 1987). The social and emotional pressures for women in a male-dominated culture such as Turkey imply that the female district governors are keenly aware of their surroundings and have refocused accordingly. Female district governors are good at intuitive thinking. Male district governors seem prone to rational thinking. As the age of district governors increases, they become prone to intuitive thinking. Gill et al. (1987) suggests that women are more likely to be affected by their environment. Their preferences are more context-bound than those of men.

Based on the limitations and findings of this study, the hope is that future research will use more participants and a longitudinal research design in order to increase the reliability and external validity of the data. Replication of our study with other bureaucrats (perhaps the rank and file) would give important information for comparison. Further, replication of this study in other countries, such as European or Middle Eastern countries that have different cultures and ethnic diversity, or a country like France that has a similar administrative structure as Turkey, would provide more accurate information for the research problems of this study. While out of the scope of this research, we also consider the importance of personality and decision-making with other individual differences, such as intelligence, interests, values, and emotions, and other concepts, such as public service motivation, job satisfaction, and emotional labor. Future research should specify the relationship between these concepts.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Erdinc Filiz, PhD, is a civil inspector in the Ministry of Interior Civil Inspection Board, Turkey. His research interests rest mainly in decision-making under uncertainty, naturalistic decision-making, crisis management, and homeland security. He has published a book entitled Crisis Management in Turkish Public Administration (2007) İstanbul: Alfa Aktüel Yayıncılık.

R. Paul Battaglio Jr is an Associate Professor of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Dallas, USA. Dr Battaglio’s research interests include public human resource management, organization theory and behavior, public and non-profit management, comparative public policy, and research methods. Dr Battaglio is currently the Editor-in-Chief of the Review of Public Personnel Administration and the author of Public Human Resource Management: Strategies and Practices in the 21st Century (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2014).

References

Ackerman PL, Bowen KR, Beier M and Kanfer R (2001) Determinants of individual differences and gender differences in knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology 93(4): 797–825.

Adair J (2010) Decision-making and Problem Solving Strategies (2nd edn). Philadelphia: Kogan Page.

Bandura

(1997) Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, New York: Freeman.

Barenbaum

Winter

(1999) History of modern personality theory and research. In: Pervin

John

(eds) Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, New York: Guilford Press, pp. 3–27.

Barrick

Mount

(1991) The big five dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology 44(1): 1–26.

Barrick

Mount

Strauss

(1993) Conscientiousness and performance among sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology 78(5): 715–722.

Barrick

Stewart

Piotrowski

(2002) Personality and job performance: Test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology 87(1): 43–51.

Bazerman

Moore

(2009) Judgment in Managerial Decision-making, (7th edn). New York: Wiley.

Blau

(1970) A formal theory of differentiation in organizations. American Sociological Review 35(2): 201–218.

10.

Block J (1968) Some reasons for the apparent inconsistency of personality. Psychologıcal Bulletin 70(3): 210–212.

11.

Brudney

Hebert

Wright

(1999) Reinventing government in the American states: Measuring and explaining administrative reform. Public Administration Review 59(1): 19–30.

12.

Bryant

Dunford

(2008) The influence of regulatory focus on risky decision-making. Applied Psychology: An International Review 57(2): 335–359.

13.

Byrnes

Miller

Schafer

(1999) Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 125(3): 367–383.

14.

Campbell

(1990) Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In: Dunnette

Hough

(eds) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology Vol 2, Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, pp. 687–732.

15.

Cannon-Bowers JA and Salas E (2002) Individual and team decision-making under stress: Theoretical underpinnings. In: Cannon-Bowers JA and Salas E (eds) Making Decisions under Stress. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 17–38.

16.

Caprara

Cervone

(2000) Personality: Determinants, Dynamics and Potentials, New York: Cambridge University Press.

17.

Carlo

Okun

Knight

(2005) The interplay of traits and motives on volunteering: Agreeableness, extraversion and prosocial value motivation. Personality and Individual Differences 38: 1293–1305.

18.

Child

(1972) Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology 6(1): 1–22.

19.

Cooper

Knotts

McCord

(2012) Taking personality seriously: The five-factor model and public management. The American Review of Public Administration 43(4): 397–415.

20.

Costa

Jr McCrae

(1992) NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual, Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

21.

Costa

Jr Terracciano

McCrae

(2001) Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81(2): 322–331.

22.

Croson

Gneezy

(2009) Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature 47(2): 448–474.

23.

Davis

Patte

Tweed

(2007) Personality traits associated with decision-making deficits. Personality and Individual Differences 42(2): 279–290.

24.

DeLongis

Holtzman

(2005) Coping in context: The role of stress, social support, and personality in coping. Journal of Personality 73(6): 1633–1656.

25.

Dewberry

Juanchic

Narendran

(2013) Decision-making competence in everyday life: The roles of general cognitive styles, decision-making styles and personality. Personality and Individual Differences 55: 783–788.

26.

Dreyfus

(1997) Intuitive, deliberative, and calculative models of expert performance. In: Zsambok

Klein

(eds) Naturalistic Decision-making, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 17–28.

27.

Dudley

Orvis

Lebiecki

(2006) A meta-analytic investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job performance: Examining the intercorrelations and the incremental validity of narrow traits. Journal of Applied Psychology 91(1): 40–57.

28.

Duhaime

Baird

(1987) Divestment decision-making: The role of business unit size. Journal of Management 13(3): 483–498.

29.

Emre

(2002) İyi Yönetim Arayışında Türkiye’de Mülki İdarenin Geleceği, Ankara: Türk İdari Araştırmalar Vakfı.

30.

Epstein

(1994) Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist 49(8): 709–724.

31.

Flannery

Williams

Vazsonyi

(1999) Who are they with and what are they doing? Delinquent behavior, substance use, and early adolescents’ after-school time. American Journal of Ortopsychiatry 69(2): 247–253.

32.

Fredrickson JW and Iaquinto AL (1989) Inertia and creeping rationality in strategic decision processes. Academy of Management Journal 32(3): 516–542.

33.

Gigerenzer

Brighton

(2009) Homo heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. Topics in Cognitive Science 1: 107–143.

34.

Gigerenzer

Todd

(1999) Fast and frugal heuristics, adaptive toolbox. In: Gigerenzer

Todd

(eds) Simple Heuristics that Make us Smart, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–34.

35.

Gill

Stockard

Johnson

(1987) Measuring gender differences: The expressive dimension and critique of androgyny scales. Sex Roles 17(7/8): 375–400.

36.

Greenberg J and Baron RA (2010) Behavior in Organizations (10th edn). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

37.

Gülgöz

(2002) Five-factor model and NEO-PI-R in Turkey. In: McCrae

Allik

(eds) The Five-factor Model of Personality Across Cultures, New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, pp. 175–196.

38.

Harris

Jenkins

Glaser

(2006) Gender differences in risk assessment: Why do women take fewer risks than men?. Judgment and Decision-making 1(1): 48–63.

39.

Heinström

(2003) Five personality dimensions and their influence on information behaviour. Information Research 9(1): 165.

40.

Hess

Osowski

Leclerc

(2005) Age and experience influences on the complexity of social inferences. Psychology and Aging 20(3): 447–459.

41.

Hogan

Roberts

(1996) Personality measurement and employment decisions: Questions and answers. American Psychologist 51(5): 469–477.

42.

Hooker

(2002) New directions for research in personality and aging: A comprehensive model for linking levels, structures, and processes. Journal of Research in Personality 36(4): 318–334.

43.

Janis

(1971) Groupthink: The desperate drive for consensus at any cost. In: Shafritz

Ott

Jang

(eds) Classics of Organization Theory, Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth, pp. 185–192.

44.

Jiang

Wang

Zhou

(2009) Personality traits and job performance in local government organizations in China. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 37: 451–457.

45.

John

Srivastava

(1999) The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In: Pervin

John

(eds) Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, (2nd edn). New York: Guilford Press, pp. 102–138.

46.

Judge

Ilies

(2002) Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology 87(4): 797–807.

47.

Judge

Higgins

Thoresen

(1999) The big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology 52(4): 621–652.

48.

Lindblom CE (1959) The science of ‘Muddling Through'. Public Administration Review 19(2): 79–88.

49.

Lipshitz

Strauss

(1997) Coping with uncertainty: A naturalistic decision-making analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 69(2): 149–163.

50.

Lizarraga

MLS

Baquedano

MTS

Oliver

(2009) Development and validation of a decision-making questionnaire. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling 37(3): 357–373.

51.

McAdams

(2008) The Person: An Introduction to the Science of Personality Psychology, Hoboken: Wiley.

52.

McCrae

Costa

Jr (1997) Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist 52(5): 509–516.

53.

McCrae

John

(1992) An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality 60(2): 175–215.

54.

McRae

Terracciano

(2005) Personality profiles of cultures: Aggregate personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89(3): 407–425.

55.

McCrae

Costa

Jr Ostendorf

(2000) Nature over nurture: Temperament, personality, and lifespan development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78(1): 173–186.

56.

McKinney

Howard

(1998) Public Administration: Balancing Power and Accountability, (2nd edn). Westport: Praeger Publishing.

57.

Mellers

Schwartz

Ritov

(1999) Emotion-based choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology 128(3): 332–345.

58.

Meyer

BJF

Talbot

Ranalli

(2007) Why older adults make more immediate treatment decisions about cancer than younger adults. Psychology and Aging 22(3): 505–524.

59.

Milgram

Tenne

(2000) Personality correlates of decisional and task avoidant procrastination. European Journal of Personality 14(2): 141–156.

60.

Miller

Byrnes

(2001) To achieve or not to achieve: A self-regulation perspective on adolescents’ academic decision-making. Journal of Educational Psychology 93(4): 677–685.

61.

O’Brien

DeLongis

(1996) The interactional context of problem-emotion, and relationship-focused coping: The role of the big five personality factors. Journal of Personality 64(4): 775–813.

62.

Orasanu

Connolly

(1993) The reinvention of decision-making. In: Klein G, Orasanu J and Calderwood R (eds) Decision Making in Action: Models and Methods, Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation, pp. 3–20. .

63.

Pacini

Epstein

(1999) The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76(6): 972–987.

64.

Peters

Hess

Vastfjall

(2007) Adult age differences in dual information processes: Implications for the role of affective and deliberative processes in older adults’ decision-making. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2(1): 1–23.

65.

Render

Stair

Jr Hanna

(2009) Quantitative Analysis For Management, New Jersey: Pearson Education.

66.

Robinson

(2007) Personality, affective processing, and self-regulation: Toward process-based views of extraversion, neuroticism, and agreeableness. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 1(1): 223–235.

67.

Rollinson

(2008) Organisational Behaviour and Analysis: An Integrated Approach, (4th edn). London: Pearson Education Limited.

68.

Salgado

(1997) The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European Community. Journal of Applied Psychology 82(1): 30–43.

69.

Schmitt

Allik

McCrae

(2007) The geographic distribution of big five personality traits: Patterns and profiles of human self-description across 56 nations. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology 38(2): 173–212.

70.

Sherif

(1936) The Social Psychology of Group Norms, New York: Harper & Row.

71.

Simon

(1960) The New Science of Management Decision, New York: Harper & Row.

72.

Sniezek

Paese

Switzer

(1990) The effect of choosing on confidence in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 46(2): 264–282.

73.

Svenson

Maule

(1993) Time Pressure and Stress in Human Judgment Decision-making, New York: Plenum Press.

74.

TIAV (Türk İdari Araştırmalar Vakfı) (2013) Toplumda İçişleri Bakanlığı ve Mülki İdare Algısı. . Prepared by TIAV, Ankara.

75.

Van Emmerik

(2008) Relationship between personality and time-related strains. Psychological Reports 102: 484–494.

76.

Wayne

Musisca

Fleeson

(2004) Considering the role of personality in the work–family experience: Relationships of the big five to work–family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior 64: 108–130.

77.

Wilfling S, Cantner U and Silbereisen RK (2011) Which big-five personality traits drive entrepreneurial failure in highly innovative firms? In: Dime-Druid Academy Winter Conference, Aalborg, Denmark, 20–22 January 2011.

78.

Wiggins

Trapnell

(1996) A dyadic-interactional perspective on the five-factor model. In: Wiggins

(ed.) The Five Factor Model of Personality: Theoretical Perspectives, New York: The Guilford Press, pp. 88–162.

79.

Wood

(1990) Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender, and Culture, Belmont: Wadsworth.

80.

Zuckerman

(1995) Good and bad humor: Biochemical bases of personality and its disorders. Psychological Science 6: 325–332.