Considering that our research aims to decipher the gears that significantly drive employee

performance, personality was one of the factors chosen for study. Prior research in this context

was reviewed; it seemed to validate the proposition that models of rewards, as well as of

punishment, that account for personality traits are radically effective in contrast to those who do

not. Subsequently, analogies were drawn that contributed towards the overall research question

as well as the hypotheses our enquiry would be testing over its course.

Personality represents an amalgamation of a duality; firstly, biological or genetic (hereditary)

factors are deemed to determine which individuals have a penchant for which reward types, and

what punishments would be effective in each individual case. Secondly, social conditioning

(environmental factors), which broadly refers to the sum of discrete individual experiences, can

also play a role in shaping motivation for human beings. (Murphy, 2008; Robbins, Odendaal &

Roodt, 2003)

Relating to the effects of social factors, the study by Bowles et al. seemed to point towards the

importance of considering their situational nature. As per the authors, it is wrong to assume

presuppositions in hypothesized relationships between performance levels and a personality type

that entails a set of traits. This is because even if the personality factor is kept constant (as a

control variable, for instance), the situation that applies would still vary the impact on

motivation. They explained this variance as follows:

There is little reason to expect that any given trait will have the same effect across different

jobs.

In addition, it was found that there is no definite link between increased motivation and high

levels of performance; the causation of the latter may lie in the mere presence of personality
traits that lead the individual to perform without incentives, and vice versa. One example that

illustrated this phenomenon was that a person did not get an annual increment for increased

performance, but performed even better in the next year, measured on the same KPIs.

To investigate in isolation the relative influence of personality traits, our research typifies them

into four categorizations that have been adopted from the article The Relationship between

Personality Types and Reward Preferences by Nienaber et al. Consequently, this classification

has been incorporated into the hypotheses that are listed later. The categories that the authors

studied were extroversion versus introversion, thinking versus feeling, sensing versus intuitive

and judging versus perceiving. It was assumed for the research that traits have an enduring

impact, and that a set of traits gradually becomes the persons dominant type.

Looking at the categories, it was found that Extroverts (as well as Sensing personalities) have a

general tendency where they place a premium on money that is greater than Introverts. Hence, it

is more likely that monetary rewards would have a greater marginal impact in their case, as

indicated by the results. In addition, Introverts would respond more to punishment (an example

given was blame or discouragement resulting from any course of action taken by a supervisor) in

terms of positive changes in performance. This is because they would not engage with other

actors in the situation to possibly protest it, for example. Related to rewards, it was seen that the

impact of fringe benefits, such as a paid family vacation, is greater in case of Introverts than

Extroverts.

As far as Thinking versus Feeling personalities are concerned, the conclusions of the study

depicted Thinking personalities as associating a higher value with equitable reward systems

which differentiate fairly between employees, per the objective assessment of their performance

levels. Feeling personalities were more likely to be motivated by initiatives of employee

engagement, for example periodic paid-for dinners with colleagues and employee birthdays. This

was also found to be true for Intuitive (in contrast to Sensing) personalities, whereby they took

such occasions as an opportunity to interact and add to their knowledge on the firms

environment.

In specific regards to the dichotomous relationship of Judging versus Perceiving, with work

performance, the study indicated that judging personalities respond better to known and codified

rewards and punishments for example scheduled yearly pay increments. On the contrary, the

individuals with perceiving personality types are geared towards a better response in cases of

unscheduled rewards for example untimely bonuses to show appreciation. Furthermore, the study

emphasizes on the difference in reward types in relationship to these personalities. Extrinsic

rewards work substantially more beneficial in terms of work performance and motivation with

judging personality types. This is due to the calculable and quantifiable nature of these rewards

that compliments the judging personalities. However, intrinsic rewards have a significantly larger

impact on the long term work performance of individuals with perceiving personality types as it

encourages their creativity and personal autonomy.