A Personality Finding Is Not a Review Rule

Approve the rule, not just the research citation

A supplier proposes choosing each employee's performance review approach from a personality questionnaire. A research citation makes the proposal sound grounded. Before approving it, ask whether the study tested that assignment rule. A finding about differences between people is not itself a tested way to decide who gets which review.

What this study actually tested

A 2022 Frontiers in Psychology study reported that the statistical relationship between developmental appraisal and job meaningfulness varied with respondents' external locus of control. That measure concerns beliefs that outcomes depend on luck, chance or powerful other people. It is not a diagnosis.

The researchers surveyed pharmaceutical salespeople in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan, using convenience sampling and a time-lag design. They did not assign different review approaches according to personality and compare the results. The finding alone does not establish which approach should be assigned to a particular employee, or that doing so improves sales.

This is a limit on what the study establishes, not a claim that tailored reviews can never help. No direction, personality cutoff or individual response rule is supplied here.

A completed assignment decision

Fictional example: a supplier sends Morgan a matrix that allocates some employees to coaching-focused reviews and others to rating-focused reviews solely from questionnaire scores. Morgan records: "Do not adopt this allocation rule. Missing evidence: a comparison testing this exact rule against our existing approach for the relevant staff and intended outcome. Owner: Morgan. Reconsider when that evidence is available."

Morgan asks the supplier for that comparison. Another correlation, or a different study merely mentioning personality, would not answer the question about the proposed rule. The team can keep evaluating the proposal without treating it as ready to use.

Keep support available while the rule is unproven

GTMA proposal: retain the existing review process while the assignment decision remains open. Agree support from observed work and the employee's stated needs. In the fictional example, Nia asks to practise handling price objections; Morgan agrees to rehearse one recent conversation at their next one-to-one. No personality category is needed to record that request.

This alternative and the worksheet are GTMA proposals, not approaches proved superior by the study. Use the worksheet to name the proposed rule, the evidence gap and the decision to withhold or reconsider it.

Sources and limits

What matters when examining the performance of salespersons? Analyzing the boundary conditions of personal dispositional factor · Frontiers in Psychology · 2022-12-05. Naeem, Shah, Kakakhel and Gul (2022). Questionnaire study of pharmaceutical salespeople in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan; convenience sample and time-lag design. A reported moderation finding about job meaningfulness, not a tested personality-to-review assignment or sales uplift.

Source support checked 2026-10-18. Practitioner accounts and proposals are identified in the article; a citation does not turn a suggestion into a proven outcome.