MLS EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Abstract.The present research examined the possible relationships between personality traits and the motivational work profile; taking into account the incidence of psychosocial risks in the relationship between both variables. It is an ex post facto, cross-sectional design of a descriptive and correlational type, observational of an analytical and non-experimental type. This study was composed of a sample of 50 workers, belonging to the millennial generation, aged between 22 and 37 years; and was made up of 29 women and 21 men. It has been recorded that there is a significant and positive correlation between the personality traits of Openness and Responsibility, with the motivational features of Achievement, Exploration and Contribution. Likewise, a significant and negative relationship was also found between the personality traits of Openness and Responsibility, and the motivational features of Hedonism, Safety and Conservation. On the other hand, it was found that in this relationship, the mediating factors of psychosocial risks such as Insecurity, Leadership, Development and Estimation are related to the personality traits of Hedonism, Education and Responsibility, the Hedonism, Exploration, Security and Contribution.

Keywords: self-esteem, schizophrenia, scales

Resumen.. La presente investigación examinó las posibles relaciones existentes entre los rasgos de personalidad y el perfil motivacional laboral; teniendo en cuenta la incidencia de los riesgos psicosociales en la relación entre ambas variables. Se trata de un diseño ex post facto, transversal de tipo descriptivo y correlacional, observacional de tipo analítico y no experimental. Este estudio se compuso de una muestra de 50 personas trabajadoras, pertenecientes a la generación millennial, en edades comprendidas entre los 22 y los 37 años; y estuvo conformada por 29 mujeres y 21 hombres. Se observó que existe una correlación significativa y positiva entre los rasgos de personalidad; Apertura y Responsabilidad con los rasgos de motivación; Logro, Exploración y Contribución. Así mismo, se encontró una relación significativa y negativa entre los rasgos de personalidad; Apertura y Responsabilidad y los rasgos de motivación; Hedonismo, Seguridad y Conservación. Por otro lado, se comprobó que en esta relación mediaban ciertos factores de riesgos psicosociales como son la Inseguridad, el Liderazgo, el Desarrollo y la Estima, los cuales mediaban la relación entre los rasgos de personalidad Apertura y Responsabilidad y los rasgos de motivación, Hedonismo, Exploración, Seguridad y Contribución.

Palabras clave:Millennials, rasgos de personalidad, perfil motivacional laboral, riesgos psicosociales.

Nowadays, three generations coexist in the workplace: the Baby Boomers, Generation X and Generation Y or Millennials (Bongiovanni & Soler, 2016). This phenomenon is known as generational turbulence or generational overlap, because there are people who belong to different generations in such companies, and who, due to this reason, have different beliefs, values and behaviors about their workplace (Pozzi, 2013). It is safe to say that there is agreement in the fact that millennials are those who were born between 1980s and 2000s (Bongiovanni & Soler, 2016). The period that corresponds to this generation coincides with the development of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), by which they are also known as digital natives (Bongiovanni & Soler, 2016). Over the years, the values that each generation has adopted have changed and, consequently, so have their expectations. It has been observed that leisure values have gradually increased in each generation. Likewise, more importance is given to personal life, with work taking a second place. Interestingly, the cited study concluded that extrinsic values reached their highest point among millennials. Moreover, contrary to what is commonly thought, they do not tend toward altruistic work more than previous generations. Finally, Millennials scored lower on social and intrinsic values than Baby Boomers (Twenge, Campbell, Hoffman, & Lance, 2010).

After knowing the characteristics of Millennials, it is necessary to define their motivation to later place focus on work motivation. Motivation is an adaptive process that drives and directs behavior toward an objective or goal (Huilcapi-Masacon, Castro-López, & Jácome-Lara, 2017). Therefore, the motivational process is derived from two fundamental aspects; the needs, which activate the behavior, and the objectives, which direct it (Rubió, 2016).

Regarding work motivation, it is one of the main constructs in the Organizational Psychology and the main determinant of work behavior, together with the worker´s capacity and psychosocial risks (Muchinsky, 2000). Work motivation is the “set of energy forces that initiate and determine the form, direction, intensity and duration of work behaviors” (Latham & Pinder, 2005; Valderrama, Escorial & Luceño, 2015, page 17). This work motivation is influenced by both external and internal stimuli. Intrinsic motivation is considered a more effective and necessary human quality; monetary rewards have been shown as not improving this type of motivation (Olafsen, Halvari, Forest, & Deci, 2015). Therefore, it is necessary to consider human capital as one of the most important factors of an organization, with the objective that people work effectively and efficiently facilitating the appearance of both types of motivation (Ristic, Selakovic, & Quereshi, 2017). In relation to intrinsic motivation, a distinction is made between the motivational profiles of approach and avoidance (Valderrama, Esocrial, & Luceño, 2015). Approach motivation guides behavior towards the positive, both in terms of objectives and results, including indicators such as extraversion and is associated with the behavior activation system (Kanfer, Frese, & Johnson, 2017). Some approximation motivations to be considered are: autonomy, which is the degree to which a person values their independence, prefers to follow their own criteria and make decisions for themselves; power, which is considered the interest to direct others, compete and win, promote, receive admiration, gain popularity and prestige; achievement, which is considered the degree to which a person encourages them self to overcome challenges, achieve professional success and high standards of excellence. Exploration, defined as the degree to which a person prefers novelty and variety, seeking to learn and discover new ways of doing thing; And contribution, which is defined as the desire to help others, contributing to society and having a positive impact in the lives of others (Valderrama, Esocrial, & Luceño, 2015). Avoidance motivation guides the behavior towards negative objectives and results, and includes neuroticism, which is associated with the inhibitory behavior system (Kanfer, Frese, & Johnson, 2017).

Regarding work motivation, it is one of the main constructs in the Organizational Psychology and the main determinant of work behavior, together with the worker´s capacity and psychosocial risks (Muchinsky, 2000). Work motivation is the “set of energy forces that initiate and determine the form, direction, intensity and duration of work behaviors” (Latham & Pinder, 2005; Valderrama, Escorial & Luceño, 2015, page 17). This work motivation is influenced by both external and internal stimuli. Intrinsic motivation is considered a more effective and necessary human quality; monetary rewards have been shown as not improving this type of motivation (Olafsen, Halvari, Forest, & Deci, 2015). Therefore, it is necessary to consider human capital as one of the most important factors of an organization, with the objective that people work effectively and efficiently facilitating the appearance of both types of motivation (Ristic, Selakovic, & Quereshi, 2017). In relation to intrinsic motivation, a distinction is made between the motivational profiles of approach and avoidance (Valderrama, Esocrial, & Luceño, 2015). Approach motivation guides behavior towards the positive, both in terms of objectives and results, including indicators such as extraversion and is associated with the behavior activation system (Kanfer, Frese, & Johnson, 2017). Some approximation motivations to be considered are: autonomy, which is the degree to which a person values their independence, prefers to follow their own criteria and make decisions for themselves; power, which is considered the interest to direct others, compete and win, promote, receive admiration, gain popularity and prestige; achievement, which is considered the degree to which a person encourages them self to overcome challenges, achieve professional success and high standards of excellence. Exploration, defined as the degree to which a person prefers novelty and variety, seeking to learn and discover new ways of doing thing; And contribution, which is defined as the desire to help others, contributing to society and having a positive impact in the lives of others (Valderrama, Esocrial, & Luceño, 2015). Avoidance motivation guides the behavior towards negative objectives and results, and includes neuroticism, which is associated with the inhibitory behavior system (Kanfer, Frese, & Johnson, 2017).

When we talk about countermotives we refer to affiliation, defined as the degree of preference in being with other people, being part of a group and feeling accepted; cooperation, which is the desire to maintain egalitarian relationships, avoiding inequity, power gap, rivalry and abuse of power; hedonism, defined as the individual’s degree of preference in guarding against efforts and stress, avoiding the sacrifice of well-being to achieve goals; safety, understood as the extent to which an individual aims to keep stability in their environment, avoiding changes and uncertainty; and conservation, which represents the desire to protect oneself, earn money and keep material assets (Valderrama, Esocrial, & Luceño, 2015). In order to differentiate approximation motives from avoidance countermotives, we use the Motivational Profile Analysis based on the wheel of motives model by Valderrama (2010). Said model provides a new theoretical framework for the classification of motivation that gives an empiric explanation to human variability and is suitable for work environment and vocational orientation.

These have been considered the predisposing factors for occupational motivation, psychosocial risks and personality traits, as are described below. Regarding psychosocial risks, their presence is linked to multiple harmful effects on health, which is why both their measurement, as well as their prevention have gained importance in the last few years (Benavides et al., 2002). According to The National Institute of Occupational Safety, Health and Wellness (NIOSH, INSSBT, Instituto Nacional de Seguridad, Salud y Bienestar en el Trabajo), psychosocial risks are those conditions given under those work situations directly related to job organization and social environment, job content and task performing, and that have the ability of affecting the work progress and the worker’s physical, mental or social health. The term ‘psychosocial’ is generally used to represent the interaction between several factors that cause disturbances in psychological and mental mechanisms (Neffa, 2015). The main psychosocial risk factors are especially taken in account to relations with psychological exigences, which comprise the amount of work, including the available time for its performance and the type of task; the active work and its development possibilities, which consists of two dimensions, influence and skill development; job uncertainty, which refers to concern about the future in relation to the occupation; leadership, which involves the existence of quality leadership, reflected in the line manager’s course of action; double presence, referred to the concern for fulfilling household chores in addition to occupational tasks; and esteem, which means recognition and support from superiors and colleagues for the effort made in performing the job (Candia, Pérez-Franco, & González, 2016).

On the other hand, personality features have been taken into account as predictors of work motivation style, since these are considered predispositions or tendencies expressed in relatively stable and consistent patterns of behavior, thoughts and/or feelings throughout life (Romero, 2005). In relation to the stability and consistency of features, it is necessary to differentiate between personality and temperament features, since even though both imply long-term behavioral dispositions, there are differences between them (Deckers, 2014). Temperament refers to individual emotional differences, which occur as a result of genetically inherited characteristics, manifesting earlier in infancy, and is more stable; whereas personality is a way of behaving, derived from the interaction between temperament characteristics and social experience, manifesting later in life and modified through experience (Deckers, 2014). Given its pliancy, personality traits are taken into consideration, which refer to consistency in a specific set of behaviors over time and within relevant situations. There is a current consensus about the personality structure that has emerged around the five major personality factors (Costa & McCrae, 1978). These factors are Neuroticism, which is opposed to adjustment and emotional stability and carries a general tendency toward experiencing negative feelings; Extroversion, which refers to sociable people who prefer to bond with other people, groups and meetings; Openness, which refers to people who want to consider new ideas and unconventional values, have intellectual curiosity and experience emotions more deeply; Kindness, which refers to altruistic people who sympathize with others and are willing to help them; and finally, Responsibility, which refers to people who are willing, stubborn, and determined. Digma and Takemoto-Chock (1981) refer to this factor as Will to Achieve (Costa & McCrae, 1978; Cordero, Pamos, & Seisdedos, 1999; Said Diez & Sánchez, 2017).

Relationship between personality, psychosocial risks and work motivational profile.

The relationship between personality has been studied from the model of the five factors (McCrae & Costa, 1987) and work motivation. The purpose of these studies has been to identify reliable predictors of work motivation. However, a weak correlation has been obtained between personality traits (measured with the Big Five) and work motivation, possibly because the measured personality traits are too general (Sjöberg, 2016). Other studies have concluded strong correlations, using the UPP-Personality, which measures different dimensions of work (Moresi, 2009). Consistent relationships have been found between personality and job performance.

Analyses revealed that motivational variables are influential mechanisms through which personality traits affect job performance (Barrick, Stewart, & Piotrowski, 2002). Further studies have taken into account the breadth of the five personality factors mentioned above, and the limited relationship they have shown with work motivation (Yahaya, 2012; Chegeni, Neisi, & Arshadi, 2015). For this reason, meta-analytical research has taken the Responsibility trait as a predictor of motivation and, consequently, professional performance (Dudley, et al, 2006).

Personality has been observed to influence the way we address emerging adverse working conditions. The key factor is that high scores in Affability or Kindness decrease psychosocial risks (Jaén, 2010). A second study has shown that proactive personality influences work-family interaction but is only beneficial when personal control over occupational stress factors can be achieved (Cunningham & De La Rosa, 2008). This study takes into account the double presence variable, in relation to work-family interaction, as a psychosocial risk; the proactive personality is not measured in itself but could be similar to the variables for Responsibility and Openness, therefore, it is important to know the relationship between these two. On the other hand, there are no general theories on the relationship between personality and subjective well-being, although Neuroticism and Extraversion factors have been related to well-being, positive and negative affection, and life satisfaction (Morán, Fínez, & Fernández-Abascal, 2016). All of the five mentioned trait factors have been taken into account. However, the factors of Openness and Responsibility receive more importance because they are considered to be more related to work motivation; although other studies only use the Responsibility variable (Yahaya, 2012; Chegeni, Neisi, & Arshadi, 2015).

In recent years, great importance has been given to the prevention of psychosocial risks by promoting organizations with "healthy" environments. For this purpose, coaching techniques are used in pursuit of increasing personal awareness and responsibility and, consequently, intrinsic professional motivation. In addition, it has been shown that there is a close relationship between both variables and that reducing psychosocial risks increases professional motivation (Gómez, 2017). Nevertheless, most of the studies related to psychosocial factors have focused on studying their relationship to stress (Cooper, 1998; Dunham, 2001; Jaén, 2010).

This research has the following objectives: firstly, to relate personality traits with the approximation or evasive work motivational profile. Secondly, personality traits with psychosocial risks and finally, these psychosocial risks with the approximation or evasive work motivational profile. Moreover, we want to see how psychosocial risks are measured in the relationship between personality traits and work motivational profiles.

Participants

For this study, a heterogeneous sample of 50 people, all of them residents in Cantabria (Spain), was used. The group consisted of 29 women (58%), and 23 men (42%) with their average age ranging from 22 to 37 years (M = 29.22, SD = 3.54). The educational level of the sample was differentiated (High School, Professional Development (mid-level), Professional Development (higher level), Bachelor’s and Post-graduate). As required, their jobs were varied. However, the existing relationship between the job performed and the academic training was taken into account; this indicated that the jobs were mostly not related to the studies undertaken (66%). As for the sample allocation, the systematic sampling technique was used, since a list of the study population was obtained, with the first being chosen randomly, and the subsequent subjects being chosen equally spread. All current ethical and legal guidelines for human research and data protection were followed.

Instruments

The informed indexes from the internal consistency of the diverse scales (α of Cronbach) correspond to the data from the current research.

NEO-FFI (Neuroticism-Extraversion-Openness Five-Factor Inventory), Personality inventory.

The Spanish short version was applied, composed of 60 items (Cordero, Pamos, & Seisdedos, 1999). The original inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1978), and its Spanish adaptation (Cordero, Pamos, & Seisdedos, 1999) are composed of 5 factors: Neuroticism (Α = .84), Extraversion (Α = .76), Openness (Α = .84), Kindness (Α = .70) and Responsibility (Α = .85); presenting the version used of 12 items for each factor. The answer is given by means of a 5-point Likert scale (0 = Completely disagree 4 = Completely agree).

APM, Análisis del perfil motivacional (Motivational Profile Analysis) by B. Valderrama, S. Escorial and L. Luceño.

The original version of the survey from the Motivational Profile Analysis (Valderrama, Esocrial, & Luceño, 2015) was applied. This is a 6-point Likert scale (1=Extremely dissatisfied; 6= Extremely satisfied), composed of 80 items, which evaluate various motives that may influence performance and other work behaviors based on the Rueda de los Motivos (Motives Wheel) by Valderrama (2010). 10 factors are presented, divided into 5 motives and 5 non-motives. On the one hand, the five motives are equivalent to the approximation motivational profile, which are Autonomy (Α = .76), Power (Α = .83), Achievement (Α = .94), Exploration (Α = .91), Contribution (Α = .77). On the other hand, the five non-motives are related to the avoidance motivational profile, which are the following ones: Affiliation (α = .53), Cooperation (Α = .75), Hedonism (Α = .90), Security (Α = .80) and Conservation (Α = .87).

Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) or ISTAS-21 COPSOQ.

The short version was applied in Spanish, which was created by the Union Institute of Work, Environment and Health (ISTAS for the Spanish acronym); the authors of the original version come from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of Denmark (AMI). It is comprised of 38 items with a Likert-type answering style of 4 points (1 = Never; 4= Always). The psychosocial risks presence level is assessed through 6 factors: Psychological exigences at work (Α = .59), Control over work (Α = .84), Insecurity (Α = .69), Social support and leadership quality (Α = .85), Double presence (Α = .74) and Esteem (Α = .84).

Procedures

This research was carried out through email. The mentioned instruments and some demographical questions (age, sex, education and occupation), which were included in a Microsoft Office Excel 2003 file that were sent. Answering the questionnaires was spaced throughout three weeks as a way of preventing a loss of focus, as well as providing enough time for returning them. The NEO-FFI was sent in the first week, which had an estimated duration of 15 minutes; the APM was sent in the second week, which had a planned duration of 25 minutes; and the ISTAS-21 COPSOQ was sent in the last week, which had a planned duration of 20 minutes. The email address was created specifically for this research and the participants had to resubmit the three completed files within the planned period.

Data analysis

According to Kerliner and Lee (2002), the research was non-experimental, with its design being ex post facto, due to the fact that the research is carried out once the studied events happened. Thus, it is an analytical observational study because, in addition to describing the variables, it looks for relationships between them. In this research, the independent variable is organic or of the state, because they are the internal characteristics of the subject; in this case, the personality characteristics. In addition, the dependent variable of this study references the subject’s internal and external characteristics, such as the working motivational profile. The presence of a mediating variable as are psychosocial risks, will be subsequently analyzed (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Diagram which shows the direct and indirect relationship between the studied variables. Personality features: independent variable. Psychosocial features: mediating variable. Working motivational profile: dependent variable.

According to the number of measurements, this research is a cross-sectional design, of a descriptive and co-relational type because measurements are taken only at a moment. Therefore, it is co-relational because it intends to establish and analyze the relationship between two or more variables. Therefore, the statistical analysis used were, firstly, bivariate correlations (Pearson’s r) followed by the analysis of the mediating effect; assessing the significance in each statistical analysis. The SPSS software was used for recording and analyzing the data.

Firstly, the relationship between the personality and motivation variables were analyzed (Table 1). As we can see, there is a significant positive relationship between the personality characteristics of Openness and Responsibility, and the motivation characteristics of Achievement, Exploration and Contribution. In this same way, there is a significant negative relationship between the personality characteristics of Openness and Responsibility, and the motivation characteristics of Hedonism, Security and Conservation.

Table 1

Secondly, the relationship between the variables of personality and psychosocial risks was analyzed (Table 2). Again, there are significant correlations with the personality characteristics of Openness and Responsibility; Openness has significant positive correlations with the Development, Leadership and Esteem factors; and negative correlation with the Insecurity factor; Responsibility has significant positive correlations with the Development, Leadership, Double Presence and Esteem factors.

Table 2

Lastly, the relationship between the motivation and psychosocial risk variables was analyzed (Table 3). There is a significant and positive relationship between Hedonism and Insecurity; however, there is a significant negative correlation between Hedonism and the variables for Development, Leadership and Double Presence; on the other hand, there is a significant negative correlation between the variables of Contribution and Psychological Requests; and a significant positive correlation between the variables of Contribution and Development, Leadership and Esteem.

Table 3

After the above correlations were carried out, ten mediation models between the variables that had significant correlations were carried out. Those models in which at least one variable of psychosocial risks appeared were taken into consideration. For this reason, five mediation models are shown below.

Firstly, variables where the relationship between Openness and Hedonism appeared were analyzed (Figure 2). The Insecurity and Leadership variables were shown to explain the relationship between Openness and Hedonism.

Figure 2.Analysis of the mediating effect of psychosocial risks in the relationship between Openness and Hedonism.

Secondly, it was shown that the variables of Development and Esteem have significant importance in the relationship between Openness and Exploration (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Analysis of the mediating effect of psychosocial risks in the relationship between Openness and Hedonism.

Third, it was found that the Insecurity variable significantly mediated the relationship between Openness and Security (Figure 4).

Figure 4.Analysis of the mediating effect of psychosocial risks in the relationship between Openness and Safety.

Fourth, it was found that said variable significantly mediated the relationship between Openness and Contribution (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Analysis of the mediating effect of psychosocial risks in the relationship between Openness and Contribution.

Finally, it was observed that the Leadership variable significantly mediates the relationship between Responsibility and Hedonism (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Analysis of the mediating effect of psychosocial risks in the relationship between Responsibility and Hedonism.

The models explained a variance between .31 and .54.

The objective of this research was to analyze the possible relationships between personality features and the work motivation of Millennials, taking into account the incidence of psychosocial risks in the relationship between both variables. This study contributes to the field of organizational psychology, since useful information is provided, both to the leaders of companies and to its workers, with the results obtained.

The most similar study found uses Personality, Motivation and Psychosocial Risks as independent variables and Labor Performance as a dependent variable. That is, the three variables used in this research are considered predictors of work performance, however, no significant results were obtained (Jaén, 2010). In the case of this research, the Personality variable is taken as an independent variable, Psychosocial Risks as a mediating variable and Motivation as a dependent variable. The main differences found between the two studies may be due to the number and categorization of the variables, since three independent and one dependent variable were used in the aforementioned study, and we choose to include a mediating variable in this research; all of them which categorized differently. On the other hand, these differences could also derive from the use of different measuring instruments.

The results of another study, which uses NEO-FFI inventory, like this research, indicate that the Responsibility variable correlates positively with work motivation and on the other hand, that the Neuroticism variable correlates negatively with work motivation (Chegeni, Neisi, & Arshadi, 2015). However, the results of this study show that Neuroticism does not correlate negatively with the motivational profile of approximation, but with three variables of the avoidance profile. On the other hand, the Responsibility variable correlates positively in all cases with the motivational profile of approximation, which would correspond to the existence of work motivation. In this case, the measurement instrument used for the personality traits is the same, however, in the mentioned study, work motivation is measured as a general feature and in this research, it is divided into ten factors, so this difference in the measure of work motivation could be the cause of the difference in the type and significance of the correlation.

In this research we have taken into account the five major factors of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1978). However, before obtaining the results, the Openness and Responsibility variables were considered as those most related to work motivation, due to the analysis of their definition. According to the predictions, the variables that significantly correlate in most cases are Openness and Responsibility, as expected. We have not found any study that takes both variables into account. However, some take Responsibility as a predictor of work motivation (Yahaya, 2012), and others, both Responsibility and Neuroticism (Chegeni, Neisi, & Arshadi, 2015). The omission of the Openness variable in other studies may be due to the fact that it can be considered a personality trait related to an openness toward experience, in a general sense. However, this research has been taken Openness into account, since it is directly related to intellectual aspects, such as divergent thinking, which contributes to creativity (McCrae, 1987).

On the other hand, Openness and Responsibility have been seen to correlate negatively with certain variables of the avoidance motivational profile. These findings could be likened to a study that found a positive relationship between proactive personality and commitment to the organization (Marjolein, Caniëls, & Semeijn, 2018), since the characteristics of the proactive personality correspond to those with high levels of Openness and Responsibility.

Likewise, in an aforementioned research, Motivation and Psychosocial Risks are related inversely to the current research, since high motivation is considered as a predictor of low psychosocial risks. However, in this research, the expected correlation is not achieved, by which we can only assume that the greater the motivation, the greater the perception of work demands (Jaén, 2010). Contrarily, this research has focused motivation in a dependent variable and psychosocial risks within a mediating variable that affects the relationship between personality and motivation. The difference between the two studies is clear, since the motivation variable in the current research is not assumed as a predictor of psychosocial risks, since these risks are considered as not being completely controlled by the individual.

Finally, in the aforementioned research by Marian Jaén Díaz, the variables of Personality and Psychosocial Risks are related in a similar way to this research, since it is considered that high scores in certain personality traits help to face certain psychosocial risks in a more positive manner. In the aforementioned study, it is the Affability variable that obtained the highest values in relationship to psychosocial risks (Jaén, 2010). In this research, instead, the Opening and Responsibility variables are again those that present higher values in relationship to psychosocial risks. This difference is most likely due again to the use of different instruments in the personality measure.

With everything that was previously mentioned, it is possible to conclude that the for new research is open due to the results obtained on those work motivation factors for Millennials. Said results reveal that the traits personality traits of Openness and Responsibility correlate in a positive and significant way with the approximation motivation profile, and that this relationship may be altered if psychosocial risks are present in relationship to development, insecurity, leadership and esteem. The data obtained contributes information for effective recruitment within companies. Because of this, applying these discoveries to the staff hiring area is of great importance, since today’s jobs require personality traits with similar characteristics as those measured by Openness and Responsibility. Taking this into consideration, it is important for the personnel in charge of hiring workers and business leaders to take these aspects into account, thus avoid hiring individuals not suitable for a specific post and provide the necessary training to acquire these traits where appropriate. Likewise, managers or senior members from any type of organization may become aware of the need to avoid the presence of certain psychosocial risks, while also strengthening the possibilities of on-the-job development and esteem toward workers. This can also be a facilitator for Millennials, because it allows them to know them self in relationship to work and as the awareness of the importance of having a work motivation profile approximation expands, it will be easier to adapt to the new demands from work environments, due to the rise of new technologies.

This technological boom and the arrival of the fourth industrial revolution, warn that further research is needed on this topic, since it is necessary to research further by taking into account the practical applications with which this research could count upon, in the case of having the necessary means. In the first place, it could add more variables such as job satisfaction or job performance, with this last being very much studied in the current literature. Likewise, it is necessary to use an instrument to measure personality traits in relationship to a more specific form of work. On the other hand, the quantitative analysis provides an objective data of the studied phenomenon. However, it would be interesting to conduct qualitative analysis with the aim of confirming or rejecting the data collected in the study sample. Lastly, we must state that this research has been carried out with young working people, so that their job descriptions and training differed widely. As such, it would be interesting to apply it to specific companies or departments.

Due to the shortage of resources in terms of time and money, certain limitations needed to be dealt with. The main limitation for this research has been access to the sample; it would be useful to enlarge it, for the sake of checking the replicability of the results. Also, the use of a general and descriptive personality inventory has been able to weaken the significance of the test results. Finally, the indexes informed of the internal consistency of the different scales (Cronbach's α) correspond to the data for the present research. These rates have been higher than .70 except in two cases; in a variable of the avoidance motivational profile, Affiliation (.53); and in a variable of psychosocial risks, Psychological Demands (.59); which indicates that the items belonging to these variables do not measure the construct in the consistent way that is sought. This can be due to the influence for social desirability, since people are often considered to be part of a group and that any work involves a certain psychological requirement.

Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G.L. & Pitrowski, M. (2002). Personality and job performance: test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 43-51. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.87.1.43

Benavides, F. G., Gimeno, D., Benach, J., Martínez, J. M., Jarque, S., Berra, A. & Devesa, J. (2002). Descripción de los factores de riesgo psicosocial en cuatro empresas. Gaceta Sanitaria, 16(3), 222-229. doi: 10.1016/s0213-9111(02)71665-8

Bongiovanni, C. & Soler, E. (2016). Características y expectativas laborales de la generación “Y”. Revista ADENAG, 6, 15-20. Retrieved from https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5607902

Candia, M., Pérez-Franco, J. M. & González, D. (2016). Manual del método del cuestionario SUCESO/ISTAS21. Recuperado de Manual de Unidad de Medicina del Trabajo de la Intendencia de Seguridad y Salud en el Trabajo. Retrieved from https://www.suseso.cl/606/articles-19640_archivo_03.pdf

Chegeni, A., Neisi, A. & Arshadi, N. (2015). The relationship of personality and organizational variables with work motivation. Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9(2), 147-157. Retrieved from https://www.elixirpublishers.com/articles/1350892171_44%20(2012)%207454-7461.pdf

Cooper, C.L. (1998). Theories of organizational stress. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Cordero, A., Pamos, A. & Seisdedos, N. (1999). NEO PI-R, Inventario de Personalidad NEO Revisado. Madrid: TEA Ediciones.

Costa, P. & McCrae, R. (1978). NEO PI-R, Revised Neo Personality Inventory and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). PAR, Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. Odessa, Florida, USA.

Cunningham, C. J. L. & De La Rosa, G. M. (2008). The interactive effects of proactive personality and work-family interference on well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13(3), 271-282. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.13.3.271

Deckers, L. (2014). Motivation: Biological, Psychological, Environmental. Londres: Inglaterra: Pearson

Dudley, N. M., Orvis, K. A., Lebiecki, J. E. & Cortina, J. M. (2006). A meta-analytics investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job performance: Examining the intercorrelations and the incremental validity of narrow traits. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 40 -57. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.40

Dunham, J. (2001). Stress in the workplace: Past, present and future. London: Whurr.

Golik, M. (2013). Las expectativas de equilibrio entre vida laboral y vida privada y las elecciones laborales de la nueva generación. Cuadernos de Administración, 46, 107-133. Retrieved from http://revistas.javeriana.edu.co/index.php/cuadernos_admon/article/view/5656

Gómez, M. D. (2017). El coaching en las organizaciones: Una aplicación a la prevención de riesgos psicosociales. (Trabajo de fin de grado). Universidad de Valladolid, Castilla y León, España. Retrieved from http://uvadoc.uva.es/handle/10324/27306

Huilcapi-Masacon, M. R., Jácome-Lara, G. A. & Castro-López, G. A. (2017). Motivación: las teorías y su relación en el ámbito empresarial. Dominio de las ciencias, 3, 311-333. Retrieved from https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5889721

Jaén, M. (2010). Predicción del rendimiento laboral a partir de indicadores de motivación, personalidad y percepción de factores psicosociales. (Tesis doctoral). Universidad Complutense, Madrid, España. Retrieved from https://eprints.ucm.es/10843/1/T31913.pdf

Latham, G. & Pinder, C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485-516. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142105

Twenge, J., Campbell, S., Hoffman, B. & Lance, C. (2010). Generational Differences in Work Values: Leisure and Extrinsic Values Increasing, Social and Intrinsic Values Decreasing. Journal of Management, 5, 1117-1142. doi: 10.1177/0149206309352246

Kanfer, R., Frese, M. & Johnson, R. E. (2017). Motivation related to work: A century of progress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 338-355. doi: 10.1037/apl0000133

Marjolein C.J. Caniëls, Judith H. Semeijn, Irma H.M. Renders, (2018) "Mind the mindset! The interaction of proactive personality, transformational leadership and growth mindset for engagement at work". Career Development International, 23, 48-66. doi: 10.1108/cdi-11-2016-0194

Morán, C., Fínez, M., & Fernández-Abascal E. (2016). Sobre la felicidad y su relación con los rasgos de personalidad. Clínica y salud, 28, 59-63. doi: 10.1016/j.clysa.2016.11.003

Moresi, S. (2009). Cournot Competition and The UPP Test. HMG Review Project. Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/horizontal-merger-guidelines-review-project-545095-00036/545095-00036.pdf

Neffa, J.C. (2015). Los riesgos psicosociales en el trabajo, contribución a su estudio. Buenos Aires: CEIL CONICET.

Olafsen, A., Halvari, H., Forest, J,. & Deci, E. (2015). Show them the money? The role of pay, managerial need support, and justice in a self-determination theory model of intrinsic work motivation. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56(4), 447-457. doi: 10.1111/sjop.12211

Pozzi, S.M. (2013). Generación Y: sus expectativas laborales. (Trabajo de fin de grado). Universidad de San Andrés, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Retrieved from http://repositorio.udesa.edu.ar/

Ristic M.R., Selakovic M., & Quereshi T.M. (2017). Employee motivation strategies and creation of supportive work environment in societies of post-socialist transformation. Polish journal of management studies, 15, 205-216. doi: 10.17512/pjms.2017.15.2.19

Rubió, T. (2016). Recursos Humanos, Dirección y gestión de personas en las organizaciones. Barcelona: OCTAEDRO.

Sjöberg, L. (2016). Beyond the Big Five: Personality and Job Performance in an E-Commerce Firm. Journal of Advances in Management Sciences & Information Systems, 2, 94-106. doi: 10.6000/2371-1647.2016.02.08

Valderrama, B. (2018). La rueda de los motivos: hacia una tabla periódica de la motivación humana. Papeles del psicólogo, 39(1), 60-70. doi: 10.23923/pap.psicol2018.2855

Valderrama, B., Escorial, S. y Luceño, L. (2015). APM. Análisis del Perfil Motivacional. Madrid: TEA Ediciones.

Yahaya, A. et al. (2012). The relationship between big five personality with work motivation, competitiveness and job satisfaction. Elixir Psychology, 44, 7454-7461. Retrieved from https://www.elixirpublishers.com/articles/1350892171_44%20(2012)%207454-7461.pdf