Job Performance in Digital Work: Do Personality Traits Matter?

Figures & data

Figure 1. The conceptual model.

Note: The dotted line represents the moderation effect.

Table 1. Measurement items and sources.

Construct	Item	Source
Agreeableness (AGR)	AGR1 I feel much concern for others	Clark et al.^Citation27
	AGR2 I am interested in people
	AGR3 I don’t insult people
	AGR4 I sympathize with others’ feelings
Openness (OPE)	OPE1 I have a rich vocabulary
	OPE2 I don’t have difficulty understanding abstract ideas
	OPE3 I have a vivid imagination
	OPE4 I am interested in abstract ideas
Neuroticism (NEU)	NEU1 I get stressed out easily
	NEU2 (R) I am relaxed most of the time
	NEU3 I worry about things
	NEU4 (R) I seldom feel blue
Conscientiousness (CON)	CON1 I am always prepared
	CON2 I don’t leave my belongings around
	CON3 I pay attention to details
	CON4 I don’t make a mess of things
Extraversion (EXT)	EXT1 I am the life of the party
	EXT2 I talk a lot
	EXT3 I feel comfortable around people EXT4 (R) I keep in the background
Work life balance (WLB)	WLB1 a good balance between the time spent for work and non-work activities	Duan and Deng^Citation14
	WLB2 (R) have difficulty balancing my work and non-work activities
	WLB3 the balance between my work demands and non-work activities is currently about right
	WLB4 Overall, I believe that my work and non-work life are balanced
Job performance (JP)	JP1 complete the specified duties	Duan et al.^Citation6
	JP2 meet formal performance requirements
	JP3 fulfil all required responsibilities
	JP4 never neglect the obligated aspects of the job
	JP5 always perform essential duties
Attitude toward digital work (ATT)	ATT1 would like to use digital work	Aboelmaged and El Subbaugh^Citation49
	ATT2 wise idea to use digital work
	ATT3 pleasant to use digital work
	ATT4 desirable to use digital work

(R) means the item is reverse-coded.

Table 2. An overview of the descriptive statistics of respondents.

Measure	Item	Percentage
Gender	Male	48.9
	Female	51.1
Age	18–24	13.9
	25–34	19.7
	35–44	17.8
	45–54	15.2
	55–64	15.2
	65+	18.1
Education	Primary education	0.6
	Secondary education	21.0
	Certificate/Diploma	30.4
	Bachelor degree	30.4
	Postgraduate degree	17.5
Weekly income	$3,000 or more	9.1
	$2,000–$2,999	16.8
	$1,000–$1,999	40.5
	$1–$999	33.0
	Nil income and Negative income	0.6
Working status	Full time	57.3
	Part time	42.7

Table 3. An overview of the measurement model analysis indices.

Construct	Item	FL	IR	CR	χ^2/df	p	CFI	RMSEA	α
AGR	AGR1	0.78	0.59	0.83	1.95	.05	0.95	0.06	0.83
	AGR2	0.84	0.71
	AGR4	0.75	0.58
OPE	OPE3	0.83	0.69	0.79					0.79
	OPE4	0.79	0.62
NEU	NEU1	0.80	0.64	0.82					0.81
	NEU3	0.87	0.76
CON	CON2	0.71	0.50	0.77					0.76
	CON3	0.71	0.50
	CON4	0.77	0.59
EXT	EXT1	0.74	0.55	0.78					0.77
	EXT2	0.72	0.52
	EXT3	0.74	0.55
WLB	WLB1	0.75	0.56	0.88					0.88
	WLB3	0.88	0.77
	WLB4	0.89	0.79
JP	JP1	0.89	0.79	0.94					0.94
	JP2	0.85	0.72
	JP3	0.90	0.81
	JP4	0.85	0.72
	JP5	0.82	0.67
ATT	ATT1	0.81	0.66	0.91					0.91
	ATT2	0.72	0.52
	ATT3	0.93	0.86
	ATT4	0.92	0.85
Recommended value		≥0.70	≥0.50	≥0.50	≤3.00	≥.05	≥0.90	≤0.08	≥0.70

Table 4. Construct validity and correlations.

	AVE	AGR	OPE	NEU	CON	EXT	WLB	JP	ATT
AGR	0.63	0.79
OPE	0.66	0.49	0.81
NEU	0.70	0.16	0.03	0.84
CON	0.53	0.42	0.24	0.02	0.73
EXT	0.54	0.54	0.43	0.07	0.12	0.73
WLB	0.71	0.26	0.25	0.25	0.25	0.33	0.84
JP	0.74	0.48	0.28	0.11	0.66	0.08	0.33	0.86
ATT	0.72	0.31	0.21	0.21	0.08	0.14	0.05	0.15	0.85

*The square roots of AVEs are on the diagonal.

Table 5. Fit statistics of the research model.

Model Fit Indices	Recommended Value	Actual Value
χ^2/df	1<NC < 3	2.01 (p ≤ .001)
RMSEA	<0.08	0.06
GFI	>0.80	0.90
RFI	>0.80	0.88
TLI	>0.90	0.93
CFI	>0.90	0.93

Table 6. Hypothesis testing results.

Hypothesis	Path	Coefficient (β)	p-value	Support for model
H1a	AGR → WLB	0.04	.695	Rejected
H1b	AGR → JP	0.28	.001	Supported
H2a	OPE → WLB	0.14	.103	Rejected
H2b	OPE → JP	0.02	.798	Rejected
H3a	NEU → WLB	−0.26	.000	Supported
H3b	NEU → JP	0.05	.386	Rejected
H4a	CON → WLB	0.23	.004	Supported
H4b	CON → JP	0.48	.000	Supported
H5a	EXT → WLB	0.11	.208	Rejected
H5b	EXT → JP	−0.17	.018	Supported
H6	WLB → JP	0.19	.001	Supported
H7a	ATT x AGR → WLB	−0.15	.041	Supported
H7b	ATT x OPE → WLB	0.08	.241	Rejected
H7c	ATT x NEU → WLB	0.03	.587	Rejected
H7d	ATT x CON → WLB	0.10	.159	Rejected
H7e	ATT x EXT → WLB	0.04	.494	Rejected
H7f	ATT x AGR → JP	−0.04	.541	Rejected
H7g	ATT x OPE → JP	0.02	.742	Rejected
H7h	ATT x NEU → JP	−0.01	.907	Rejected
H7i	ATT x CON → JP	−0.17	.003	Supported
H7j	ATT x EXT → JP	0.02	.651	Rejected

Clark LA, Karau SJ, Michalisin MD. Telecommuting attitudes and the ‘big five’ personality dimensions. J Manag Policy Pract. 2012;13:31–46.

 Google Scholar

Duan SX, Deng H. Intrinsic needs and job performance in digital work: the mediating role of work-life balance. IEEE Trans Eng Manage. 2022;1–9. doi:10.1109/TEM.2022.3218925.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Duan SX, Deng H, Wibowo S. Exploring the impact of digital work on work–life balance and job performance: a technology affordance perspective. Inf Technol People. 2023;36(5):2009–29. doi:10.1108/ITP-01-2021-0013.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Aboelmaged MG, El Subbaugh SM. Factors influencing perceived productivity of Egyptian teleworkers: An empirical study. Meas Bus Excell. 2012;16(2):3–22. doi:10.1108/13683041211230285.

 Google Scholar