ployees who are happier at their jobs are more sa ti s ‐ fied, and their performance is a ffected posi ti vely, which is why job sa ti sfac ti on is relevant and needs to be explored (Adigun, Oyekunle & Onifade, 2017). Re ‐ silience is another important factor, because there is clear evidence that more ‐resilient people are able to bounce back from di fficult experiences, adapt, de ‐ velop, and in some cases even grow (Luthans, Vo ‐ gelgesang & Lester, 2006). Many employers are focusing increasingly on the cri ti cal factors that influ ‐ 1 INTRODUCTION The COVID ‐19 pandemic is currently reshaping our world and impac ti ng not only our personal lives, but our work lives as well. The way we work is chang ‐ ing from the o ffice to hybrid or even completely re ‐ mote workplaces, and di fferent people are reac ti ng di fferently to all the changes and protec ti ve measures (Shokrkon & Nicoladis, 2021). Job sa ti sfac ti on has an impact on material advantage and well ‐being. Em ‐ THE INTERACTION BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS AND MODE OF WORK IN PREDICTING RESILIENCE AND JOB SATISFACTION Gašperlin Janina School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana janina.gasperlin@gmail.com Dovžan Nuša School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana nusad@icloud.com Ferjan Karmen School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana karmenferjankarmen@gmail.com Lamovšek Amadeja School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana amadeja.lamovsek@ef.uni ‐lj..si Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 67 Abstract Since the COVID ‐19 virus has become part of our lives, organiza ti ons have been looking for ways to adjust work ar ‐ rangements and adopt di fferent modes of work (e.g., hybrid and remote work) while maintaining job sa ti sfac ti on among their employees. This paper explored the rela ti onships between employee’s personality traits and their mindset and their influence on employee resilience and job sa ti sfac ti on. Addi ti onally, we inves ti gated whether the rela ti onship between personality traits, employee mindset, and desired outcomes varied across different modes of work. This study is important for managers because it helps them be tt er understand the importance of their employees’ individual characteris ti cs in rela ti on to desired outcomes. Keywords: personality traits, resilience, mindset, job sa ti sfac ti on, mode of work Vol. 10, No. 2, 67 ‐82 doi:10.17708/DRMJ.2021.v10n02a05 Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 68 Gašperlin Janina, Dovžan Nuša, Ferjan Karmen, Lamovšek Amadeja: The Interac ti on Between Individual Characteris ti cs and Mode of Work in Predic ti ng Resilience and Job Sa ti sfac ti on ence a company’s resilience, and resilience seems to be as important to companies as the bo tt om line (Noopur, 2021). Despite clearly being recognized as salient, many factors that poten ti ally can impact job sa ti sfac ti on and resilience have not been studied yet and need to be explored further. Some studies have shown the rela ti onship be ‐ tween employee personality traits and their impact on job sa ti sfac ti on and resilience. For example, re ‐ cent research has found that extraverts are more prone to depression (Wijngaards, Sisouw de Zilwa & Burger, 2020), and that people with a posi ti ve a tti ‐ tude cope be tt er with current circumstances (Fuller & Huseth ‐Zosel, 2021). In a study of the Latvian Na ‐ ti onal Guard, extraverted employees were found to be less resilient than introverts (Kalinnikova, Za ‐ vodilov & Dmitrijeva, 2020), which could mean that introverts experience far less stress due to their re ‐ silience. In addi ti on, one study showed that people with a posi ti ve mindset have higher job sa ti sfac ti on (Orkibi & Brandt, 2015). Luthans and Youssef (2007) found a posi ti ve correla ti on between the contribu ‐ ti on of hope, op ti mism, and resilience (i.e., elements of posi ti ve psychological capital or posi ti ve mindset) and job sa ti sfac ti on and job happiness. Due to recent developments in the environment in which COVID ‐ 19 circumstances have evolved suddenly, the topic also is quite new and unexplored, and as such pro ‐ vides a unique opportunity for scien ti fic insight. The literature does not give us answers to the ques ti on of what happens when subjects are not ex ‐ posed to extreme condi ti ons as in the study by Kalinnikova et al. (2020), but are observed in their natural environment. Moreover, no clear study has confirmed that introverts are more resilient when exposed to any kind of stressful situa ti on (e.g., the COVID ‐19 situa ti on). Wei (2020) showed that intro ‐ verts actually reported worse psychological changes than extraverts as a result of the pandemic (i.e., a stressful situa ti on) and had higher levels of depres ‐ sion, anxiety, and loneliness. Because of these con ‐ flic ti ng claims, we determined which of these claims proves to be true. In addi ti on, many studies focused on the e ffects of a posi ti ve mindset on performance, which of course is relevant for organiza ti ons, but they focused less on the e ffects on job sa ti sfac ti on, which we also believe is important and should be researched more. We also found a lack of research on the correla ti on between employee posi ti vity or nega ti vity and organiza ti onal resilience, and be ‐ cause this currently is a hot topic and a desirable trait, we explored this in greater depth. Finally, to the best of our knowledge, no research has ad ‐ dressed whether the rela ti onship between person ‐ ality traits, employees’ mindsets, and desired outcomes varies across di fferent modes of work. Our study explored interrela ti onships among employees’ personality traits, their mindset, and how they a ffect their resilience and job sa ti sfac ti on, in the hope of finding clues about which type of trait might be more successful in coping with stress, and whether any of these traits are be tt er predictors of employees’ resilience. This could make an important contribu ti on to the scholarly discussion ini ti ated by Cain (2012) regarding the strength of introverts in the workplace and their job sa ti sfac ti on. By concep ‐ tualizing and tes ti ng our model, organiza ti ons can gain perspec ti ve on the importance of posi ti vity in the workplace and can educate their employees to ‐ ward a more posi ti ve a tti tude. This study advances the research area examin ‐ ing personality traits and their e ffects on job sa ti s ‐ fac ti on and resilience. We wanted to find out whether more ‐extraverted people are more re ‐ silient, because studies in this area seem to be con ‐ tradictory (Kalinnikova et al., 2020; Wei, 2020). On the other hand, the research on individual mindset and resilience seems to be fairly clear, so we want to confirm findings from the exis ti ng theory. How ‐ ever, if the results of our research showed the op ‐ posite, this could point us in a new direc ti on to find an op ti mis ti c aspect of pessimis ti c thinking within specific se tti ngs related to modes of work. Along these lines, we wanted to find out whether there is a rela ti onship between the mode of work and work ‐ ers’ resilience. If such a rela ti onship exists, our study could be an important help for many di fferent peo ‐ ple—managers, HR managers, employees, and oth ‐ ers—in making decisions about how to work a ft er the COVID ‐19 constraints have been relaxed. In ad ‐ di ti on, this study could be highly significant if we find a posi ti ve rela ti onship between the mode of work and employee job sa ti sfac ti on. Our study fills some gaps in the literature on the rela ti onship be ‐ tween posi ti ve mindset and job sa ti sfac ti on, be ‐ cause research on this topic is very scarce. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 69 2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 2.1 Personality Traits Personality traits can be defined as pa tt erns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that reflect how an individual tends to react in certain situa ti ons under certain circumstances (Sanchez ‐Roige, Gray, MacKil ‐ lop, Chen & Palmer, 2017). The five ‐factor model of personality was developed by several researchers (Digman, 1990) who agreed that there are five trait dimensions that capture a wide range of individual di fferences in personality, namely neuro ti cism, agreeableness, openness to experience, conscien ‐ ti ousness, and extraversion (Soto, Kronauer & Liang, 2015; Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz & Knafo, 2002). We de ‐ cided to focus on extraversion because it recently has been included in scien ti fic debates (Shokrkon & Nicoladis, 2021) and seems to be a topical issue. The idea of extraversion can be depicted with a bell curve, in which introversion and extraversion are at opposite ends (Houston, 2021). People who sup ‐ posedly are extraverts engage in social ac ti vi ti es to a greater extent, prefer group ac ti vi ti es, and become energized by social interac ti ons (Lucas, Le & Dyren ‐ forth, 2008; ter Bogt, Engels & Dubas, 2006). The op ‐ posite might be true for introverts, who tend to prefer solitary ac ti vi ti es and easily are overwhelmed by too much s ti mula ti on from social gatherings and engagement (Goby, 2006). Both terms, introvert and extravert, were introduced by Carl Jung (1921), but his original defini ti ons have been interpreted in var ‐ ious ways. He also introduced the term ambivert, which lies in the middle of the spectrum, and Conklin (1923) added that ambiverts draw energy inter ‐ changeably from both ends of the spectrum. With the idea of a spectrum, we can say that it is di fficult to create a benchmark and say when someone is introverted or extraverted. Instead, we can use the spectrum of extraversion as a scale to determine where people fall in terms of behavior compared to others (Houston, 2021). Therefore, we decided to not use the terms introvert and extravert in our study, because it is di fficult to put a bench ‐ mark on a scale and categorize people into groups of introverts and extraverts based solely on the data obtained. Instead, we categorized our par ti cipants from more to less extraverted. As a tti tudinal standards are much more “ex ‐ traverted” these days, society has tried to cure in ‐ troverts in some ways (Taylor, 2020; Lounsbury, Mo ffitt , Gibson, Drost & Stevens, 2007). It has been shown that there is a rela ti onship between extraver ‐ sion and selec ti on success (Stewart, Dus ti n, Barrick & Darnold, 2008), because extraverts tend to pre ‐ sent themselves be tt er (Kristof ‐Brown, Barrick & Franke, 2002). According to Wilmot, Wanberg, Kam ‐ meyer ‐Mueller & Ones (2019), extraverts perform be tt er in the workplace than their introverted coun ‐ terparts due to their proac ti ve nature and constant sugges ti ons to improve their career and company. Therefore, and because they tend to earn more than their introverted counterparts (Gensowski, 2018), we could say that extraverts have the upper hand when it comes to being more sa ti sfied with their jobs than introverts. However, because extraverts are more likely to be sa ti sfied in roles that involve high levels of social interac ti on (Huang et al., 2016), they currently are in a poor posi ti on to be completely sa ti sfied with their jobs because the pandemic has taken away this opportunity. This was confirmed by Liu et al. (2021), who found that extraverts showed higher levels of distress due to the inability to interact so ‐ cially. In addi ti on, Kalinnikova et al. (2020) showed that introverted na ti onal guards showed lower lev ‐ els of stress and thus higher levels of resilience than their extraverted counterparts. However, Wei (2020) indicated that introverts actually experi ‐ enced worse psychological changes than extraverts as a result of the pandemic (i.e., a stressful situa ‐ ti on) and exhibited higher levels of depression, anx ‐ iety, and loneliness. Taken together, these studies report conflic ti ng informa ti on about the response of people with di fferent personality types. 2.2 Mindset Mindset is a certain belief of how someone per ‐ ceives the world and themselves. There are many types of mindset (Rhinesmith, 1992). For example, Dweck (2007) dis ti nguished between the growth mindset and the fixed mindset, which are associated with abili ti es. The fixed mindset is associated with innate abili ti es that cannot grow. A growth mindset, on the other hand, is associated with hard work that Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 70 Gašperlin Janina, Dovžan Nuša, Ferjan Karmen, Lamovšek Amadeja: The Interac ti on Between Individual Characteris ti cs and Mode of Work in Predic ti ng Resilience and Job Sa ti sfac ti on can lead to success. On the other hand, Sagiv and Schwartz (2007) developed a theory that there are eight types of mindsets, namely hierarchical individ ‐ ualism, egalitarian individualism, hierarchical syner ‐ gism, egalitarian synergism, hierarchical populism, egalitarian populism, hierarchical collec ti vism, and egalitarian collec ti vism. There is a rela ti onship be ‐ tween these eight types of mindsets (Yolles & Fink, 2013). A posi ti ve mindset also can be associated with op ti mism, which refers to a person’s future. It is about having hope for the future. Op ti mism has a posi ti ve impact on well ‐being (Carver, Scheier & Segerstrom, 2010). In our research, we decided that the defini ti on of posi ti ve and nega ti ve mindset was the most suitable for our research because we think that these terms are used first when we use the word mindset. The posi ti ve mindset described in conserva ti on of resources theory gains posi ti ve outcomes such as well ‐being (Hobfoll, 2011). Individuals who are more likely to have posi ti ve thinking balance work be tt er and experience posi ti ve life outcomes. Individuals’ posi ti vity is more likely to lead to success because posi ti ve individuals are more likely to face their problems (Carver & Scheier, 1998; Scheier & Carver, 2003). In one study, it was found to have no e ffect on performance, but posi ti ve people are more de ‐ termined, which can lead to be tt er performance in the long run (Tenney, Logg & Moore, 2015). Sagone and Caroli (2015) showed a posi ti ve correla ti on with resilience: individuals with a more posi ti ve a tti tude toward life exhibited higher resilience. People who are more posi ti ve tend to be more resilient than less posi ti ve ‐minded people. 2.3 Mode of Work The last decade witnessed a trend of increas ‐ ing use of work from home, an increasing number of digital nomads, and the formation of different modes of work. The first mode of work is a tradi ‐ tional office specified for employees who do their entire work at the company’s physical location. The opposite is remote work, in which people can work from anywhere. Between these are two types of hybrid systems. First hybrid option is one in which the employees can choose to work from home or in the office. Another hybrid system is called hybrid rotation, in which working groups have a schedule for working in the workplace and from home or an ‐ other location. As a result of the pandemic, there has been some digital transformation in most com ‐ panies. There is a growing trend for companies to focus on employee well ‐being in the workplace and develop more ‐flexible working models such as hybrid systems. The question of the best way to work post ‐pandemic remains for many companies (Rubin, Nikolaeva, Nello ‐Deakin & te Brömmel ‐ stroet, 2020). A tradi ti onal o ffice means that employees pri ‐ marily work in a designated space on the premises of the company. (Hill, Ferris & Mär ti nson, 2003). A rota ti on system, one of the possible hybrid systems, means that groups of students or employees rotate on a fixed schedule among di fferent learning or working modali ti es. The rota ti on system always in ‐ cludes at least one sta ti on for online working or learning. One of the benefits of the rota ti on system is that it allows working in smaller groups. That mode of work might be the answer to dealing with the lack of facili ti es (Staker & Horn, 2012). The sec ‐ ond hybrid system arranges the employee’s working loca ti on according to their preferences. In this case, work can be done partly at home and partly at the workplace (Employers’ Federa ti on of India, 2020). “Work from home” is a term used for labour ac ‐ ti vi ti es accessed through the use of informa ti on technology and is performed away from the tradi ‐ ti onal workplace’ (Employers’ Federa ti on of India, 2020). Work from home is a subcategory of remote work, which first was defined as “periodic work away from the main o ffice one or more days per week” either at home or from abroad (Nilles, 1998). During COVID ‐19, the lockdown has led to an in ‐ creasing use of work from home. Companies with experiences in di fferent types of remote work have found some advantages and disadvantages com ‐ pared with working in the o ffice. For example, Google learned that the key to successful remote work was both formal and informal communica ti on. Employees some ti mes struggled with the feeling of not being connected to the outside world, and there also were some logis ti cal di fficul ti es such as coordi ‐ na ti ng schedules when employees were in di fferent ti me zones (Katz, 2019). Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 71 Work from home entails a number of long ‐term unexplored problems, such as social distancing, self ‐ management, household dilemmas, employer dilemmas, work–life balance, being less recognized by superiors, pu tti ng sensi ti ve informa ti on at risk, higher costs of computer devices and internet for the employee, etc. Some constraints are culture ‐ or industry ‐specific. (Jewson, 2002). Interna ti onal re ‐ search on experiences of working from home during the first year of the COVID ‐19 pandemic found that the top disadvantages were lack of social contacts, inability to focus, and worse work–life balance (Rubin et al., 2020). On the other hand, working remotely increases produc ti vity when one needs a controlled environ ‐ ment; it enables working flexible hours and elimi ‐ nates commu ti ng costs. Another advantage of working remotely is that enabling more freedom in choosing the mode of work in organiza ti ons as a “dual agenda” meets both organiza ti onal goals and the ability to integrate the demands of work and personal life (Rapoport, Bailyn, Fletcher & Prui tt , 2002). A work ‐from‐home experiment at Ctrip with 16,000 employees found a 13% increase in perfor ‐ mance due in part to working more minutes per shi ft and in part to more calls per minute in a more comfortable and quiet home environment (Bloom, Liang, Roberts & Ying, 2014). Employees also re ‐ ported an improvement in job sa ti sfac ti on (Bloom et al., 2014). 2.4 Job Sa ti sfac ti on There is no clear defini ti on of job sa ti sfac ti on. Di fferent authors define job sa ti sfac ti on di fferently. However, the issue is important in organiza ti ons, both today and in the past (Aziri, 2011). Vroom (1964) defined it as a workplace that fo ‐ cuses on employees who are oriented to their role at work. Hoppock (1935) said that sa ti sfac ti on is a combina ti on of environmental, psychological, and physiological condi ti ons of an individual who con ‐ sequently takes pride in his or her work. It has something to do with how a person feels and what elements are the cause of sa ti sfac ti on. Workers most commonly associate sa ti sfac ti on with their feelings toward work. It reflects to what extent they loathe or like their jobs (Aziri, 2011). According to Davis, Leach and Clegg (1985) sa ti sfac ti on is the ex ‐ tent to which the expecta ti ons of a worker are met in his or her posi ti on and, it is related closely to how people behave at work. Job sa ti sfac ti on is in a sense success at work. Usually, it is associated with pro ‐ duc ti vity and personal well ‐being. It means that a person enjoys doing his or her job and receives a re ‐ ward for it. It suggests happiness, and can lead to fulfilment (Kaliski, 2007). It also is defined as a col ‐ lec ti on of beliefs and feelings about a person’s work. It can range from extreme sa ti sfac ti on to extreme dissa ti sfac ti on, and is described as an a tti tude to ‐ ward a job. Job sa ti sfac ti on can be an essen ti al element of e fficiency and produc ti vity of an organiza ti on. Workers should be treated morally by considering their needs, wants, and other aspects. It is said that a sa ti sfied employee is a successful employee. When sa ti sfac ti on is not present, other nega ti ve consequences occur, such as absenteeism, dissa ti s ‐ fac ti on, lack of loyalty, etc. (Dziuba, Ingaldi & Zhu ‐ ravskaya, 2020). We assumed from previous research that posi ‐ ti ve ‐minded people are more sa ti sfied with their job. Because the literature is scarce, we wanted to confirm our hypothesis. Orkibi and Brandt (2015) showed that sa ti sfac ti on comes from people with posi ti ve mindset. Luthans and Youssef (2007) stud ‐ ied job sa ti sfac ti on, and the results showed a posi ‐ ti ve correla ti on between hope (an element of posi ti ve capital) and job sa ti sfac ti on. H1a: Employees’ posi ti ve mindset is posi ti vely re ‐ lated to job sa ti sfac ti on. In line with Bloom (2014) and Rapoport (2002), we assumed that working from home, when em ‐ ployees have a posi ti ve mindset, also contributes to higher job sa ti sfac ti on through improved percep ti on of freedom, and brings more passion to work with easier integra ti on of work and personal life. H1b: Mode of work moderates the posi ti ve rela ti on ‐ ship between employees’ posi ti ve mindset and job sa ti sfac ti on such that the basic rela ti onship is more posi ti ve when employees work from home. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 72 Gašperlin Janina, Dovžan Nuša, Ferjan Karmen, Lamovšek Amadeja: The Interac ti on Between Individual Characteris ti cs and Mode of Work in Predic ti ng Resilience and Job Sa ti sfac ti on Next, because Huang et al. (2016) suggested that more ‐extraverted individuals are more sa ti sfied with jobs that demand high social interac ti on, we wanted to see if this could be generalized for all types of jobs, and therefore we propose the follow ‐ ing hypothesis: H2a: Employees’ extraversion is posi ti vely related to their job sa ti sfac ti on. Due to a lack of social interac ti on, which extro ‐ verted employees need in order to thrive (Huang et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2021), we expect them to be less sa ti sfied when they work from home. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis: H2b: Mode of work moderates the posi ti ve rela ti on ‐ ship between extraversion personality type and job sa ti sfac ti on such that the basic rela ti onship is more negati ve when employees work from home. 2.5 Resilience Resilience is the ability to cope with shocks and con ti nue to func ti on in the same way. It is a measure of a society, business, or ecosystem that demonstrates the ability to change before passing a ti pping point. It includes capabili ti es such as adapta ti on, change, and restructuring in coping with disrupti on. “It is about changing to avoid being changed” (Walker, 2020). According to Walker (2020), nine a tt ributes pro ‐ mote overall resilience: exposure to disrup ti on; diver ‐ sity of response; modularity or interconnectedness; ability to respond quickly to change or shock; readi ‐ ness for transforma ti on; thinking, planning, and man ‐ aging across scales; and leading rather than direc ti ng. Therefore, exposure to variability is necessary to build and maintain resilience, whereas a tt emp ti ng to pro ‐ tect a system from shocks reduces its resilience. On the other hand, resilience can be understood as a capacity to rebuild and recover quickly (Herbane, 2015) or as a response to a crisis (Pal, Torstensson & Ma tti la, 2014). Furthermore, resilience can be seen as a characteris ti c that an organiza ti on possesses before, during, and a ft er an event. Four categories of resilience in rela ti on to ti me are resilience as a proac ti ve a tt ribute, an absorp ti ve and adap ti ve a tt ribute, a reac ti ve at ‐ tribute, or a dynamic a tt ribute (Conz & Magnani, 2020). As a proac ti ve a tt ribute, resilience can be un ‐ derstood as an ability to be ready in ti mes of crisis and maintain superior organiza ti onal performance (Pal et al., 2014). In addi ti on, resilience as an ab ‐ sorp ti ve a tt ribute is defined as the ability to persist in the face of significant change or to withstand dis ‐ rup ti on and catastrophic events (Acquaah, Amoako ‐ Gyampah & Jayaram, 2011). A third defini ti on of resilience as a reac ti ve a tt ribute explains it as the ability to survive disrup ti ons (McPhee, 2014). From a dynamic perspec ti ve, resilience is con ‐ ceptualized as a temporal process consis ti ng of two pathways: adap ti ve and absorp ti ve (Conz & Mag ‐ nani, 2020). The goal of resilience as a dynamic at ‐ tribute is to develop mul ti ple sources of compe titi ve advantage (Reinmoeller & van Baardwijk, 2005). From a psychological perspec ti ve, there is some evidence showing a rela ti onship between loneli ‐ ness, mental health, and resilience in the era of COVID ‐19 (Killgore, Taylor, Cloonan & Dailey, 2020). Child adjustment is determined in many cases by the influence of family members. Rela ti onship qual ‐ ity, marital conflict, family beliefs, and communica ‐ ti on have significant e ffects (especially during COVID ‐19) on family well ‐being and resilience (Prime, Wade & Browne, 2020). We assumed that a posi ti ve mindset is posi ti vely related to resilience, because a posi ti ve mindset and resilience both are reinforced by similar factors, such as posi ti ve family beliefs and quality rela ti onships, as discussed by Prime, Wade and Browne (2020). H3a: Employees’ posi ti ve mindset is posi ti vely re ‐ lated to resilience. H3b: Mode of work moderates the posi ti ve rela ti on ‐ ship between employees’ posi ti ve mindset and re ‐ silience such that the basic rela ti onship is more posi ti ve when employees work from home. Because less ‐extraverted individuals tend to have more mental health problems (Janowsky, 2001) and more adjustment problems in general (Davidson, Gillies & Pelle ti er, 2015), we developed the following hypothesis: H4a: Employees’ extraversion is posi ti vely related to their resilience. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 73 This might be based on the sugges ti on that ex ‐ traverted individuals show increased levels of help ‐ seeking behavior (Kakhnovets, 2011). However, contrary to Kalinnikova et al. (2020), who showed that less ‐extraverted individuals tend to be more re ‐ silient when exposed to extreme stress, Wei (2020) suggested that the change of mode of work should be salient in this line of inquiry. Although this contra ‐ dicts the general belief that more ‐extraverted indi ‐ viduals need social interac ti on to func ti on “normally” (Lucas et al., 2008; ter Bogt, Engels & Dubas, 2006), we decided to test Wei’s (2020) assump ti on. H4b: Mode of work moderates the posi ti ve rela ti on ‐ ship between the personality trait of extraversion and resilience such that the basic rela ti onship is more posi ti ve when employees work from home. 3 METHODOLOGY 3.1 Sample and collec ti on of data The survey was conducted online using the 1KA web ‐based survey tool. The survey was distributed via Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and email randomly to di fferent age groups. It was available from 18 June 2021 to 13 July 2021. A total of 421 people started par ti cipat ‐ ing in our survey, of whom 230 (55%) skipped the entry page and 161 (38%) started answering our ques ti ons but did not finish; only 127 (30%) surveys were com ‐ pleted in total. Of the 127 respondents, 81 were female and 45 were male. Most respondents (50%) were be ‐ tween the ages of 18 and 24, and the average age was 30.5 years. The educa ti on level of the respondents var ‐ ied; 57 had completed high school, 39 had a bachelor’s degree, 27 had a master’s degree, and 2 had a profes ‐ sional degree. Regarding marital status, 71 respondents iden ti fied as single, 51 iden ti fied as married or cohabit ‐ ing, one iden ti fied as widowed, and four iden ti fied as divorced. In terms of work status, 67 respondents were students, 53 had full‐ti me jobs, one was re ti red, one was unable to work, and five were self ‐employed. 3.2 Measurement The research ques ti onnaire consisted of 11 sets of ques ti ons, from which one set of ques ti ons in ‐ volved mindset; one involved resilience; one involved personality traits; one involved job sa ti sfac ti on; one set contained four ques ti ons about work mode be ‐ fore, during, and a ft er COVID ‐19; and another set of ques ti ons involved demographic data (including gen ‐ der, age, educa ti on, marital status, employment sta ‐ tus, monthly income, and years of work experience). There were 10 statements in the ques ti on set measuring mindset, 10 statements measuring person ‐ ality traits, six statements measuring resilience, and five statements measuring job sa ti sfac ti on. With three sets of four statements, we measured the mode of work (i.e., o ffice/physical loca ti on, hybrid system as rota ti on, hybrid system as working at the preferable des ti na ti on, and work from home) before and during COVID ‐19, and the preferred mode of work in the future. All the measuring scales were validated and checked beforehand, but for easier analysis, we con ‐ verted the measuring scale from 5 ‐point to 7 ‐point Likert scales. In the quan ti ta ti ve part of the survey, each item was rated on a 7 ‐point Likert scale from 1 for “strongly disagree” to 7 for “strongly agree.” Scheier, Carver, and Bridges’ (1994) 10 ‐item scale (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.546) was used to measure per ‐ ceived mentality. Personality traits were measured using the 10 ‐item scale (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.899) by Topolewska ‐Siedzik (2014). Job sa ti sfac ti on was mea ‐ sured using the five ‐item scale (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.905). To measure resilience, we used the Brief Re ‐ silience Scale (BRS) (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.758), which consists of six items and was developed by Smith, Dalen, Tooley, Christopher and Bernard (2008). To analyze the respondents’ work prac ti ses, we asked three ques ti ons about their primary work prac ti ses before COVID ‐19 and a ft er COVID ‐19, and their preferred work prac ti ses in the future. For each of the three ques ti ons, there were four re ‐ sponse op ti ons: o ffice/physical loca ti on, hybrid ‐ ro ‐ ta ti on, hybrid (being able to choose to work from home or in the o ffice), and from home/remote. 3.3 Research Model In our research model, we hypothesized that job sa ti sfac ti on and resilience can be predicted by mindset and personality traits. We assumed that the rela ti onship between the variables is moderated by the condi ti onal variable “mode of work.” Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 74 3.4 Procedure To obtain an overview of the data, we first per ‐ formed a descrip ti ve analysis, obtaining the means, standard devia ti ons (SDs), and Pearson correla ti on co ‐ e fficients of our main variables. Then we conducted a mul ti ple linear regression analysis to examine the re ‐ la ti onships between extraversion and resilience, mindset and resilience, extraversion and job sa ti sfac ‐ ti on, and mindset and job sa ti sfac ti on. In addi ti on, we conducted moderated regression using Model 1 in PROCESS macro version 3 (Hayes, 2018) to examine the modera ti ng e ffect of mode of work on the basic associa ti on between the observed variables. 4 RESULTS Through descrip ti ve analysis in SPSS, we ob ‐ tained the following data (Tables 1 and 2). From 148 valid answers (N = 148) we obtained a general idea about the individuals’ mindsets, indica ti ng that our par ti cipants had, on average, more posi ti ve mind ‐ sets (M = 4.4572). Standard devia ti ons showed that all data were quite clustered (SD = 0.77789). For our measurement of extraversion, the number of valid answers decreased (N = 145). The mean score was approximately in the middle of the extraversion spectrum (M = 4.1869), yet the stan ‐ dard devia ti on was quite high, as expected, be ‐ cause people are di fferent in terms of their extraversion (SD = 1.20521). In terms of job satisfaction, our participants (N = 132) were more on the satisfied side (M = 5.3924, SD = 1.06216). Finally, for our last mea ‐ sured trait, resilience, which also had the fewest valid answers (N = 128), the scoring was about av ‐ erage for our group of participants (M = 4.3346, SD = 0.97149). Most respondents (32.3%; N = 127) said that before COVID ‐19 they mostly worked from the of ‐ fice/physical loca ti on, and during the COVID ‐19 cri ‐ sis, this percentage increased to 42%. Furthermore, 35% said their mode of work had not changed and that they liked it, but for future preferences, most parti cipants said that they would prefer to work from the o ffice/physical loca ti on again. Gašperlin Janina, Dovžan Nuša, Ferjan Karmen, Lamovšek Amadeja: The Interac ti on Between Individual Characteris ti cs and Mode of Work in Predic ti ng Resilience and Job Sa ti sfac ti on Figure 1: Research model with hypotheses Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 75 In the next step, linear regression was conducted. The results are summarized in Table 3. Model 1 had mindset as a predictor and job sa ti sfac ti on as the de ‐ pendent variable), and Model 2 had personality as pre ‐ dictor and job sa ti sfac ti on as the dependent variable. In Model 3, mindset was the predictor and resilience was the dependent variable. In Model 4, personality was the predictor and resilience was the dependent variable. Table 1: Descrip ti ve sta ti s ti cs Table 2: Symmetry measures Table 3: Linear regression results N Minimum Maximum Mean Standard devia ti on Skewness Kurtosis Sta ti s ti c Standard error Sta ti s ti c Standard error Age 127 2 5 3.02 1.198 0.685 0.215 −1.141 0.427 Employment 127 1 7 1.70 1.143 2.911 0.215 9.330 0.427 Income 127 1 6 3.16 1.883 0.167 0.215 −1.455 0.427 Job sa ti sfac ti on mean 132 1.00 7.00 5.3924 1.06216 −1.453 0.211 3.603 0.419 Mindset mean 148 2.00 6.00 4.4572 .77789 −0.602 0.199 0.838 0.396 Personality mean 145 1.00 6.80 4.1869 1.20521 −0.219 0.201 −0.330 0.400 Resilience mean 128 1.00 6.67 4.3346 .97149 −0.246 0.214 1.288 0.425 Work mode before 127 1 4 1.45 .906 1.846 0.215 2.032 0.427 Work mode change sa ti sfac ti on 127 1 4 2.13 .920 0.102 0.215 −1.168 0.427 Work mode during 127 1 4 2.65 1.313 −0.195 0.215 −1.721 0.427 Work mode wish 127 1 4 2.09 .968 0.251 0.215 −1.177 0.427 Valid N (listwise) 127 Personality mean Job sa ti sfac ti on mean Resilience mean Mindset mean Work mode during N Valid 145 132 128 148 127 Missing 16 29 33 13 34 Skewness ‐.219 −1.1453 −.246 −.602 −.195 Standard error of skewness .201 .211 .214 .199 .215 Kurtosis ‐.330 3.603 1.288 .838 −1.721 Standard error of kurtosis .400 .419 .425 .396 .727 Range 5.80 6.00 5.67 4.00 3 Model R R² F B ‐value p ‐value Model 1 0.364 0.133 19.888 0.481 0.000 Model 2 0.310 0.096 13.842 0.272 0.000 Model 3 0.455 0.207 32.902 0.545 0.000 Model 4 0.412 0.170 25.803 0.329 0.000 Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 76 Gašperlin Janina, Dovžan Nuša, Ferjan Karmen, Lamovšek Amadeja: The Interac ti on Between Individual Characteris ti cs and Mode of Work in Predic ti ng Resilience and Job Sa ti sfac ti on To test Hypothesis H1a, Model 1 with mindset as predictor and job sa ti sfac ti on as the dependent variable had an R ‐value of 0.364 and R² = 0.133. Therefore, 13.3% of varia ti on in job sa ti sfac ti on could be explained by varia ti on in mindset. How ‐ ever, the p ‐value, which meanes sta ti s ti cal signifi ‐ cance, was 0.000. Hence, we can accept our hypothesis that employees’ posi ti ve mindset is pos ‐ i ti vely related to job sa ti sfac ti on, and with a 1% in ‐ crease in the mindset score, we would expect a 0.481% increase in job sa ti sfac ti on. In Model 2, tes ti ng the H2a hypothesis, with per ‐ sonality as the predictor and job sa ti sfac ti on as the dependent variable, the R ‐value was 0.310 and R² = 0.096, meaning that only 9.6% of varia ti on in job sa ti s ‐ fac ti on could be explained by varia ti on in the person ‐ ality trait of extraversion. A p ‐value of 0.000 indicated sta ti s ti cal significance, and therefore with 1% increase in the personality trait of extraversion, we would ex ‐ pect a 0.272% increase in job sa ti sfac ti on. Therefore we can accept our hypothesis that employees who are more extraverted are more sa ti sfied with their job than those who are less extraverted. Model 3, which tested Hypothesis H3a, had an R ‐value of 0.455 and R² = 0.207, meaning that 20.7% of varia ti on in resilience can be explained by a vari ‐ a ti on in mindset. The p ‐value was 0.000, which means that there is a connec ti on between mindset and resilience, and we can accept our hypothesis and say that employees’ posi ti ve mindset is posi ‐ ti vely related to resilience. Based on our results, with a 1% increase in an individual’s mindset, we can expect a 0.545% increase in the resilience score. There appears to be a connec ti on between the personality trait of extraversion and resilience as we predicted with Hypothesis H4a and as described in Model 4. The R ‐value for Model 4 was 0.412 and R² = 0.170, meaning that 17.0% of varia ti on in re ‐ silience can be explained by varia ti on of personality trait of extraversion. The p ‐value was 0.000, so we can accept our hypothesis that employees who are more extraverted are more resilient than the ones who are less extraverted. With a 1% increase in the personality trait of extraversion, we would expect a 0.329% increase in the resilience score. Finally, the results of the analysis with the PRO ‐ CESS macro modelling tool (Hayes, 2018) in SPSS are reported in Table 4. With mode of work during the COVID ‐19 lockdown set as a moderator, regressions were run. Model 1 had mindset as the independent variable and job sa ti sfac ti on as the dependent vari ‐ able, and in Model 2 the dependent variable was job sa ti sfac ti on and the independent was the individual’s personality traits (extraversion). In Model 3, the de ‐ pendent variable was changed to resilience and the observed independent variable was mindset. In Model 4, personality trait (extraversion) was the independent variable and the dependent variable was resilience. In our first hypothesis, we predicted that mode of work moderates the rela ti onship between mind ‐ set and job sa ti sfac ti on (H1b). The p ‐value for Model 1 (mindset and job sa ti sfac ti on) was 0.2351, so we can reject Hypothesis H1b and say that mode of work does not moderate the posi ti ve rela ti onship between employees’ posi ti ve mindset and job sa ti s ‐ fac ti on such that the basic rela ti onship is more pos ‐ i ti ve when employees work from home. Next, we tested whether mode of work moder ‐ ates the rela ti onship between extraversion and job sa ti sfac ti on (H2b). Model 2 (personality trait and job sa ti sfac ti on) had a p ‐value of 0.5225, so we reject Hypothesis H2b that mode of work moderates the posi ti ve rela ti onship between extraversion person ‐ ality type and job sa ti sfac ti on such that the basic re ‐ la ti onship is more nega ti ve when employees work from home. Model R R² F B ‐value p ‐value Model 1 0.3804 0.1447 6.931 0.364 0.2351 Model 2 0.3206 0.1028 4.6978 0.310 0.5225 Model 3 0.5536 0.3065 18.1192 0.455 0.0021 Model 4 0.4940 0.2440 13.2337 0.412 0.1534 Table 4: Moderated linear regression Our third hypothesis (H3b) tested whether mode of work moderates the rela ti onship between mindset and resilience. Model 3, with mindset as the independent variable and resilience as the depen ‐ dent variable, indicated sta ti s ti cally significant re ‐ sults, with a p ‐value of 0.0021. The R² value indicates that about 30.65% of the variability in resilience can be explained by changes in mindset. Therefore, we can accept our hypotheses that an employee’s pos ‐ i ti ve mindset is posi ti vely related to resilience and that mode of work moderates the posi ti ve rela ti on ‐ ship between employees’ posi ti ve mindset and re ‐ silience such that the basic rela ti onship is more posi ti ve when employees work from home. The fourth moderator hypothesis (H4b), Model 4, with personality traits (extraversion) as the inde ‐ pendent variable and resilience as the dependent variable, had the second best significance, with a p ‐ value of 0.1534. The R² value indicates that extraver ‐ sion could be accountable for 24.40% of the variability in resilience. S ti ll, we have to reject the hypothesis that mode of work moderates the posi ‐ ti ve rela ti onship between personality trait of ex ‐ traversion and resilience. 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 5.1 Interpreta ti on of Findings We systema ti cally approached our goal and used di fferent methods of research to determine if there are any exis ti ng connec ti ons between the in ‐ dividual characteris ti cs (personality trait of extraver ‐ sion and posi ti ve mindset) of employees and their job sa ti sfac ti on and resilience. We also determined if mode of work as a moderator had any impact on those connec ti ons. Based on the obtained results, we can draw some conclusions. The descrip ti ve sta ti s ti cs indicate that our sample was quite repre ‐ senta ti ve in terms of mean scores for each observed variable. Job sa ti sfac ti on varies between coun ‐ tries—it is highest in India (79%) and lowest in Japan (42%); the value for Europe is about 73% (Randstad, 2021). The number of par ti cipants who had a mean score of five or higher indicates that 75% of them appear to be sa ti sfied with their jobs. This again sug ‐ gests that our sample is representa ti ve. Further ‐ more, 73 par ti cipants also scored above the mean Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 77 in extraversion, which represents an approximate middle of the extraversion scale spectrum; we could say that approximately 61% of par ti cipants can be classified as extraverts. This agrees with the general approxima ti on that extraverts make up 50%–74% of the popula ti on (Bue tt ner, 2012). Therefore, we can say that our sample is representa ti ve because the percentage of extraverts appears to be similar to that in real life. Linear regression confirmed all our hypotheses and the exis ti ng connec ti ons between the observed variables. The strongest connec ti ons were between the individual’s mindset and resilience (R² = 0.207) and between the personality trait of extraversion and resilience (R² = 0.170). However, PROCESS macro modelling using mode of work during COVID ‐19 as a moderator confirmed only the hypothesis that em ‐ ployees’ posi ti ve mindset is posi ti vely related to re ‐ silience and that mode of work moderates the posi ti ve rela ti onship between employees’ posi ti ve mindset and resilience such that the basic rela ti on ‐ ship is more posi ti ve when employees work from home. Mode of work during COVID ‐19 was chosen because we were measuring job sa ti sfac ti on, which is a dynamic parameter and is very situa ti on ‐depen ‐ dent. Therefore we had to use the current situa ti on to obtain the best results. All the other hypotheses with mode of work during COVID ‐19 set as modera ‐ tor were rejected. We found exis ti ng connec ti ons be ‐ tween observed variables. There appear to be stronger connec ti ons between mindset, extraversion and resilience, whereas job sa ti sfac ti on was not con ‐ nected strongly to any of those variables. 5.2 Theore ti cal Contribu ti ons Our research provides some theore ti cal contri ‐ bu ti ons in the field of extraversion and its e ffect on job sa ti sfac ti on and resilience. We found that a weak connec ti on between extraversion and job sat ‐ isfac ti on. This means that other factors have more impact on job sa ti sfac ti on, and, theore ti cally, a very introverted and a very extraverted individual could be equally sa ti sfied with their jobs regardless of their mode of work. Because no significant connec ‐ ti on was found between job sa ti sfac ti on and ex ‐ traversion with mode of work as moderator, we advance and contrast the findings of Huang et al. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 78 (2016) by showing that more ‐extraverted individu ‐ als need more s ti mula ti on to be sa ti sfied with their jobs. We confirmed the hypothesis that more ‐ex ‐ traverted individuals tend to be more resilient than those who are less extraverted and we. We also re ‐ inforced what the has literature already suggested, that there is a strong connec ti on between mindset and resilience. Our research also helps to fill the gap about the connec ti ons between mindset and job sa ti sfac ti on, which was very scarce; we showed that there in fact is a weak connec ti on. 5.3 Prac ti cal Contribu ti ons As a prac ti cal contribu ti on, we can say that managers need to encourage their employees to build a posi ti ve mindset, because this seems to strengthen the resilience we need in ti mes of crisis. Furthermore, we rejected the hypothesis that mode of work moderates the posi ti ve rela ti onship be ‐ tween extraversion personality type and job sa ti s ‐ fac ti on, which means that ac ti ons regarding returning to the o ffice a ft er the COVID‐19 epidemic has passed (or at least calmed down) require a more individualized approach than was thought. There ‐ fore, managers will need to consult with their em ‐ ployees to make decisions, because our research found that less ‐extraverted individuals are not nec ‐ essarily more likely to want to work from home. 5.4 Limita ti ons The first problem with the ques ti onnaire we used was that it was too long, so our comple ti on rate was very low. To improve this, we should have created a separate ques ti onnaire from another re ‐ search group to make it shorter, which probably would have given us a larger sample and thus a bet ‐ ter insight into the phenomenon. In addi ti on, we should have worded some of the ques ti ons be tt er and added some addi ti onal ques ti ons to avoid pos ‐ sible bias and to determine whether other variables could have an impact on our research subjects. For example, we could ask par ti cipants if they recently have been exposed to very stressful events (e.g., the death of a rela ti ve, illness, failing a course, being fired, etc.). If so, this could be a factor a ffec ti ng re ‐ silience, and we might therefore expect to see a change in resilience scores. Furthermore, the ti ming of our survey could have been be tt er. Because we conducted the survey just before the summer holi ‐ days, we could have expected that some of the em ‐ ployees might have been annoyed and not interested in our survey, or that their answers might have been biased. For example, if their boss gave them a bonus just before the holidays, they may have been more likely to say that they currently were very sa ti sfied with their job than if they were surveyed at another ti me. The sampling method we used was not random; opportunity sampling was used, which had an e ffect on our sample, as is evi ‐ dent from the demographic informa ti on. Many of the parti cipants were in the same age group as the researchers, and many of them said that they were s ti ll full ‐ti me students, which was not ideal for mea ‐ suring job sa ti sfac ti on, because they did not have experience or their experience was limited. From this perspec ti ve, we could improve our research by sending our survey directly to large companies, which would distribute it to their employees. Of course, we would have to be careful to include as many di fferent industries as possible and determine if there are any di fferences between them. 5.5 Future Research Our research raises some ques ti ons and points to some areas and issues that could be explored fur ‐ ther . One possible issue is the impact of ambi ti on on job sa ti sfac ti on. Some research suggests that ex ‐ traverts are more likely to respond to rewards than are introverts (Ashton, Lee & Paunonen, 2002; Lucas & Diener, 2000), which could mean that extraverts currently are more frustrated, because climbing the social ladder is seen as a reward. It would be inter ‐ es ti ng to test whether there is a correla ti on between individuals’ personality traits and their ambi ti ons in terms of how they respond to working from home and how it a ffects their job sa ti sfac ti on. Next, we also could inves ti gate whether the tasks that par ti c ‐ ipants have to complete at their workplace correlate with their sa ti sfac ti on. Previous research has shown that tasks that do not match personality traits and personal preferences can cause irritability, boredom, anxiety, and dissa ti sfac ti on (Edwards & Harrison 1993; Kristoff‐Brown et al., 2005). The displacement Gašperlin Janina, Dovžan Nuša, Ferjan Karmen, Lamovšek Amadeja: The Interac ti on Between Individual Characteris ti cs and Mode of Work in Predic ti ng Resilience and Job Sa ti sfac ti on Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 79 of these tasks as a result of the epidemic could lead to individuals being less sa ti sfied with their jobs. Fur ‐ thermore, we could determine whether certain areas are preferred by employees with di fferent per ‐ sonality traits. In conduc ti ng this type of research, we also could examine the design of o ffice spaces, because di fferent people have di fferent preferences for their workspace (Davis et al., 2011). Because in ‐ troverts are more easily overs ti mulated by the envi ‐ ronment, it would be interes ti ng to see if the design of their current workspace a ffects their job sa ti sfac ‐ ti on. Based on recent studies, we also could study whether less ‐extraverted people find the current form of remote work more sa ti sfying than those who are more extraverted. In addi ti on, current employer preferences and their impact on employee job sa ti s ‐ fac ti on could be explored further. Aziz and Pangil (2017) found that individuals who are more ex ‐ traverted and therefore “be tt er at selling them ‐ selves” (Kristof ‐Brown et al., 2002) are more likely to be hired than are their introverted counterparts; however, some studies suggest that introverts may outperform their extraverted counterparts in making risky decisions, yet they oft en are overlooked (Kuh ‐ nen & Chiao, 2009). Lastly, the aspect of resilience also could be included here, because introverted employees o ft en feel excluded and overlooked (Mc ‐ Cord & Joseph, 2020). Research here could include both perspec ti ves—that of the employer, and that of the employee. We could study how well intro ‐ verted employees perform under stress (taking safety precau ti ons into account) and how they be ‐ have a ft er making mistakes. This could be interest ‐ ing, because Brebner and Cooper (1978) found that extraverts become faster a ft er making a mistake, whereas introverts tend to pause and examine what happened to avoid making the same mistake in the future. Especially in ti mes of uncertainty brought about by the pandemic, it would be interes ti ng to observe how individuals with di fferent personality traits deal with risk and how the mistakes they make a ffect their job sa ti sfac ti on. REFERENCES Acquaah, M., Amoako ‐Gyampah, K. & Jayaram, J. (2011). Resilience in family and nonfamily firms: an examina ‐ ti on of the rela ti onships between manufacturing strategy, compe titi ve strategy and firm performance. Interna ti onal Journal of Produc ti on Research, 49, 18, 5527 ‐5544. Adigun, A. O., Oyekunle, I. A. & Onifade, T. (2017). Influ ‐ ence of job sa ti sfac ti on on employees’ performance in MTN Nigeria. Global Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(5), 54 ‐60. Ashton, M. C., Lee, K. & Paunonen, S. V. (2002). What is the central feature of extraversion? Social a tt en ti on versus reward sensi ti vity. Journal of personality and social psychology, 83(1), 245. Aziri, B. (2011). Job sa ti sfac ti on: a literature review. Man ‐ agement Research & Prac ti ce, 3(4). Aziz, A. & Pangil, F. (2017). Modera ti ng E ffect of Emo ‐ ti onal Intelligence on the Rela ti onship between Per ‐ sonality Traits and Employability. Saudi Journal of Humani ti es and Social Sciences, 2(2), 132 ‐139. Bloom, N., Liang, J., Roberts, J. & Ying, Z. (2014). Does Working from Home Work? Evidence from a Chinese EXTENDED SUMMARY/IZVLE ČEK Organizacije so v času pandemije COVID ‐19 iskale nove na čine, kako prilagodi ti ureditev dela in vpelja ti razli čne pojavne oblike dela (npr. hibridno delo, delo na daljavo) ter ob tem ohrani ti zado ‐ voljstvo svojih zaposlenih. Ta članek je raziskal razmerje med osebnostnimi karakteris ti kami za ‐ poslenih in njihovimi vplivi na trdoživost zaposlenih in zadovoljstvo pri delu. Študija je prav tako raziskala ali se ta razmerja razlikujejo v razli čnih pojavnih oblikah dela. Izsledki raziskave so pomembni za managerje, saj jim pomagajo razume ti povezavo med individualnimi karakteris ti kami zaposlenih in rezulta ti pri delu v okviru dolo čene pojavne oblike dela. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 80 Gašperlin Janina, Dovžan Nuša, Ferjan Karmen, Lamovšek Amadeja: The Interac ti on Between Individual Characteris ti cs and Mode of Work in Predic ti ng Resilience and Job Sa ti sfac ti on Experiment. The Quarterly Journal Of Economics, 130(1), 165 ‐218. Bloom, N., Liang, J., Roberts, J. & Ying, Z. J. (2015). Does working from home work? Evidence from a Chinese experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Eco ‐ nomics, 130(1), 165 ‐218. Brebner, J. & Cooper, C. (1978). S ti mulus ‐or response ‐in ‐ duced excita ti on. A comparison of the behavior of in ‐ troverts and extraverts. Journal of Research in Personality, 12(3), 306 ‐311. Bue tt ner, D. (2012). Are Extroverts Happier Than Intro ‐ verts? Retrieved July 2021, from h tt ps://www.psy ‐ chologytoday.com/us/blog/thrive/201205/are ‐extrov erts ‐happier ‐introverts Cain, S. (2012). Quiet: The power of introverts in a world that can’t stop talking. Crown Publishers/Random House. Carver, C. S. & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self ‐regula ti on of behaviour. Cambridge University Press. New York, NY , US. Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F. & Segerstrom, S. C. (2010). Op ‐ ti mism. Clinical psychology review, 30(7), 879 ‐889. Cavus, M. F. & Gokcen, A. (2015). Psychological capital: Defini ti on, components and e ffects. Journal of Educa ‐ ti on, Society and Behavioural Science, 244 ‐255. Conklin, E.S. (1923). The defini ti on of Introversion, Extro ‐ version and Allied Concepts. Journal of Abnormal Psy ‐ chology and Social Psychology, 17, 367 ‐382 Conz, E. & Magnani, M. (2020). A dynamic perspec ti ve on the resilience of firms: A systema ti c literature review and a framework for future research. European Man ‐ agement Journal, 38,(3), 400 ‐412. Davidson, B., Gillies, R. & Pelle ti er, A. (2015). Introversion and Medical Student Educa ti on: Challenges for Both Students and Educators. Teaching And Learning In Medicine, 27(1), 99 ‐104. Davis, K. and Nestrom, J.W. (1985). Human Behavior at work: Organiza ti onal Behavior, 7th edi ti on. McGraw Hill, New York, p.109 Davis, M. C., Leach, D. J. & Clegg, C. W. (2011). The Phys ‐ ical Environment of the O ffice: Contemporary and Emerging Issues. In G. P. Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford (Eds.), Interna ti onal Review of Industrial and Organi ‐ za ti onal Psychology (Vol. 26, pp. 193 ‐ 235). Chich ‐ ester, UK: Wiley. Digman, J. (1990). Personality Structure: Emergence of the Five ‐Factor Model. Annual Review Of Psychology, 41(1), 417 ‐440. Dweck CS. (2007). Mindset: The New Psychology of Suc ‐ cess. Updated Edi ti on. Ballan ti ne Books. Dziuba, S. T., Ingaldi, M. & Zhuravskaya, M. (2020). Em ‐ ployees’ job sa ti sfac ti on and their work performance as elements influencing work safety. System Safety: Human ‐Technical Facility ‐Environment, 2(1). Edwards, J. R., & Van Harrison, R. (1993). Job demands and worker health: Three ‐dimensional reexamina ti on of the rela ti onship between person ‐environment fit and strain. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 628–648. Employers’ Federa ti on of India. (2020). Work from home. A policy prescrip ti on. ILO. Fuller, H. R. & Huseth ‐Zosel, A. (2021). Lessons in Resilience: Ini ti al Coping Among Older Adults During the COVID ‐19 Pandemic. The Gerontologist, 61(1), 114–125. Gensowski, M. (2018). Personality, IQ, and life ti me earn ‐ ings. Labour Economics, 51, 170 ‐183. George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (2005). Understanding and managing organiza ti onal behavior. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Pren ti ce Hall. Gilrane, V. (2019). Working together when we’re not to ‐ gether. Google. Retrieved August 1 st from: h tt ps://blog.google/inside ‐google/life ‐at ‐google/work ‐ ing ‐together ‐when ‐were ‐not ‐together/. Goby, V. P. (2006). Personality and online/o ffline choices: MBTI profiles and favored communica ti on modes in a Singapore study. Cyberpsychology & behavior, 9(1), 5 ‐13. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduc ti on to media ti on, modera ‐ ti on, and condi ti onal process analysis: A regression ‐ based approach (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. Herbane, B. (2015). Threat orienta ti on in small and medium ‐sized enterprises: understandingdi fferences toward acute interrup ti ons. Disaster Preven ti on and Management, 24(5), 583 ‐595. Hill, E., Ferris, M. & Mär ti nson, V. (2003). Does it ma tt er where you work? A comparison of how three work venues (tradi ti onal o ffice, virtual o ffice, and home of ‐ fice) influence aspects of work and personal/family life. Journal Of Voca ti onal Behavior, 63(2), 220 ‐241. Hobfoll, S. E. (2011). Conserva ti on of resources theory: Its implica ti on for stress, health, and resilience. In S. Folkman (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of stress, health, and coping (pp. 127–147). Oxford University Press. Hoppock, R. (1935). Job Sa ti sfac ti on. Harper and Broth ‐ ers, New York, p. 47 Houston, E. (2021). Introvert vs Extrovert: A Look at the Spectrum and Psychology. Retrieved 10 August 2021, from h tt ps://posi ti vepsychology.com/introversion ‐ex ‐ troversion ‐spectrum/ Huang, J. L., Bramble, R. J., Liu, M., Aqwa, J. J., Ott‐ Hol ‐ land, C. J., Ryan, A. M., ... & Wadlington, P . L. (2016). Rethinking the associa ti on between extraversion and job sa ti sfac ti on: The role of interpersonal job con ‐ text. Journal of Occupa ti onal and Organiza ti onal Psy ‐ chology, 89(3), 683 ‐691. Janowsky, D.S. (2001). Introversion and extroversion: Im ‐ plica ti ons for depression and suicidality. Curr Psychi ‐ atry Rep, 3, 444–450. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 81 Jewson, N. (2002). In Work, At Home: Towards an Under ‐ standing of Homeworking. Routledge. Jung, C. G. (1921). Psychological Types. The Collected Works of C. G. Jung, Vol. 6, Bollingen Series XX. Kakhnovets, R. (2011). Rela ti onships among personality, ex ‐ pecta ti ons about counseling, and help ‐seeking a tti tudes. Journal of Counseling & Development, 89(1), 11–19. Kalinnikova, L., Zavodilov, A. & Dmitrijeva, O. (2020). Stress Symptoms under Extreme Circumstances in Latvian Na ti onal guard Personnel with di fferent Per ‐ sonality Supertraits. Kaliski, B.S. (2007). Encyclopedia of Business and Finance. Thompson Gale, Detroit, p. 446 Katz, G. (2019). Future of work: What Google learned about remote work from its employees. Retrieved Au ‐ gust 14, 2021 from h tt ps://www.theladders.com/ca ‐ reer ‐advice/what ‐google ‐learned ‐about ‐remote ‐work ‐from ‐its ‐employees . Kempf Taylor, Melissa. (2020). Personality Styles: Why They Ma tt er in the Workplace. 10.37075/EA.2020.1.08. Killgore, W. D. S., Taylor, E. C., Cloonan, S. A. & Dailey, N. S. (2020). Psychological resilience during the covid ‐19 lockdown. Psychiatry Research, 291, 113216. Kristof ‐Brown, A., Barrick, M. & Franke, M. (2002). Appli ‐ cant Impression Management: Disposi ti onal Influences and Consequences for Recruiter Percep ti ons of Fit and Similarity. Journal Of Management, 28(1), 27 ‐46. Kristoff‐Brown, A., R. Zimmerman, E. Johnson. (2005). Con ‐ sequences of individual’s fit at work: A meta ‐analysis of person ‐job, person ‐organiza ti on, person ‐group, and per ‐ son ‐supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281 ‐342 Kuhnen, C. & Chiao, J. (2009). Gene ti c Determinants of Financial Risk Taking. Plos ONE, 4(2), e4362. Liu, S., Lithopoulos, A., Zhang, C., Garcia ‐Barrera, M. & Rhodes, R. (2021). Personality and perceived stress during COVID ‐19 pandemic: Tes ti ng the media ti ng role of perceived threat and e fficacy. Personality And Individual Di fferences, 168, 110351. Lounsbury, J. W ., Mo ffitt , L., Gibson, L. W ., Drost, A. W ., & Stevens, M. (2007). An Inves ti ga ti on of Personality Traits in Rela ti on to Job and Career Sa ti sfac ti on of In ‐ forma ti on Technology Professionals. Journal of Infor ‐ ma ti on Technology, 22(2), 174–183. Lucas, R. E., Le, K. & Dyrenforth, P. S. (2008). Explaining the extraversion/posi ti ve a ffect rela ti on: Sociability cannot account for extraverts’ greater happiness. Jour ‐ nal of personality, 76(3), 385 ‐414. Luthans, F., Vogelgesang, G. R. & Lester, P . B. (2006). De ‐ veloping the Psychological Capital of Resiliency. Human Resource Development Review, 5(1), 25–44. McCord, M. & Joseph, D. (2020). A framework of nega ti ve responses to introversion at work. Personality And In ‐ dividual Di fferences, 161. McPhee, W. (2014). A new sustainability model: Engaging the en ti re firm. Journal of Business Strategy, 35(2), 4 ‐12 Mullins, L. J. (2005). Management and organisa ti onal be ‐ haviour. Harlow, England: Pren ti ce Hall/Financial Times. Nilles, J.M. (1998). Managing Telework: Strategies for Managing the Virtual Workforce. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Noopur, R. B. (2021). Role of perceived HRM toward workplace bullying and turnover inten ti on: media ti ng role of resilience and psychological health. Asia ‐Pa ‐ cific Journal of Business Administra ti on. Orkibi, H. & Brandt, Y . I. (2015). How posi ti vity links with job sa ti sfac ti on: Preliminary findings on the media ti ng role of work ‐life balance. Europe’s journal of psychol ‐ ogy, 11(3), 406. Pal, R., Torstensson, H. & Ma tti la, H. (2014). Antecedents of organiza ti onal resilience in economic crises—an empirical study of Swedish tex ti le and clothing SMEs. Interna ti onal Journal of Produc ti on Eco ‐ nomics, 147, 410 ‐428. Prime, H., Wade, M., Browne, D., T. (2020). Risk and Re ‐ silience in Family Well ‐Being During the COVID ‐19 Pandemic. American Psychologist, 75, 631 ‐643. Randstad Workmonitor (2021). Q4 2019 report. Retrieved 1 August 2021, from h tt ps://workforceinsights.rand ‐ stad.com/hr ‐research ‐reports ‐workmonitor ‐q42019 Rapoport, R. Bailyn, L. Fletcher, J. & Prui tt , B. (2002). Be ‐ yond Work ‐Family Balance. Advancing Gender Equity and Workplace Performance. London: Wiley. Reinmoeller, P. & van Baardwijk, N. (2005). The link be ‐ tween diversity and resilience. MIT Sloan Manage ‐ ment Review, 46(4), 61. Rhinesmith, S. H. (1992). Global mindsets for global man ‐ agers. Training & Development, 46(10). Richard E. Lucas & Ed Diener (2000).Cross ‐Cultural Evidence for the Fundamental Features of Extraversion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(3), 452–68. Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. & Knafo, A. (2002). The Big Five Personality Factors and Personal Values. Per ‐ sonality And Social Psychology Bulle ti n, 28(6), 789 ‐ 801. doi: 10.1177/0146167202289008 Rubin, O., Nikolaeva, A., Nello ‐Deakin, S. & te Brömmel ‐ stroet, M. (2020). What can we learn from the COVID ‐ 19 pandemic about how people experience working from home and commu ti ng. Centre for Urban Studies, University of Amsterdam. Sagiv, L. & Schwartz, S.H. (2007). Cultural values in orga ‐ niza ti ons: insights for Europe. European Journal of In ‐ terna ti onal Management, 1(3), 176–190. Sagone, E. & Caroli, M. E. (2015). Posi ti ve personality as a predictor of high resilience in adolescence. Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Science, 3(2), 45 ‐53. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, November 2021 82 Gašperlin Janina, Dovžan Nuša, Ferjan Karmen, Lamovšek Amadeja: The Interac ti on Between Individual Characteris ti cs and Mode of Work in Predic ti ng Resilience and Job Sa ti sfac ti on Sagone, E. & Caroli, M. E. (2015). Posi ti ve personality as a predictor of high resilience in adolescence. Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Science, 3(2), 45 ‐53. Sal ti el, F. (2020). Who can work from home in developing countries? Covid Economics, 7, 104–118. Sanchez ‐Roige, S., Gray, J., MacKillop, J., Chen, C. & Palmer, A. (2017). The gene ti cs of human personality. Genes, Brain and Behavior, 17(3), e12439. Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (2003). Self ‐regulatory pro ‐ cesses and responses to health threats: E ffects of op ‐ ti mism on well ‐being. In J. Suls & K. A. Wallston (Eds.), Social psychological founda ti ons of health and illness (pp. 395–428). Blackwell Publishing. Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Dis ‐ ti nguishing op ti mism from neuro ti cism (and trait anx ‐ iety, self ‐mastery, and self ‐esteem): A re ‐evalua ti on of the Life Orienta ti on Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063 ‐1078. Shokrkon, A. & Nicoladis, E. (2021). How personality traits of neuro ti cism and extroversion predict the e ffects of the COVID ‐19 on the mental health of Canadians. Plos one, 16(5), e0251097. Smith, B. W ., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P . & Bernard, J. (2008). The Brief Resilience Scale: As ‐ sessing the ability to bounce back. Interna ti onal Jour ‐ nal of Behavioral Medicine, 15(3), 194–200. Soto, C. J., Kronauer, A. & Liang, J. K. (2016). Five ‐factor model of personality. In S. K. Whitbourne (Ed.), Ency ‐ clopedia of adulthood and aging (Vol. 2, pp. 506 ‐510). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Staker, H., B. Horn, M. (2012). Classifying K ‐12 Blended Learning. Innosight Ins ti tute. Stewart, G. L., Dus ti n, S. L., Barrick, M. R. & Darnold, T. C. (2008). Exploring the handshake in employment in ‐ terviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1139– 1146. ter Bogt, T.F.M., Engels, R.C.M.E. & Dubas, J.S. (2006).. Party people: Personality and MDMA use of house partyvisitors. Addic ti ve Behaviors, 31, 1240–1244. Tenney, E. R., Logg, J. M. & Moore, D. A. (2015). (Too) op ‐ ti mis ti c about op ti mism: The belief that op ti mism im ‐ proves performance. Journal of personality and social psychology, 108(3), 377. Topolewska ‐Siedzik, E., Skimina, E., Strus, W., Cieciuch, J. & Rowi ński, T. (2014). The short IPIP ‐BFM ‐20 ques ‐ ti onnaire for measuring the big five. Roczniki Psycho ‐ logiczne, 17(2), 367 ‐384. Vinkers, C. H., van Amelsvoort, T., Bisson, J. I., Branchi, I., Cryan, J. F., Domschke, K., Howes, O. D., Manchia, M., Pinto, L., de Quervain, D., Schmidt, M. V. & van der Wee, N. J. A. (2020). Stress resilience during the coro ‐ navirus pandemic. European Neuropsychopharmacol ‐ ogy, 35, 12–16. Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and mo ti vati on. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Walker, B. H. (2020). Resilience: what it is and what is not. Ecology and Society, 25. Walne, M. B. (2012). Emerging Blended‐Learning Models and School Profiles. EduStart LLC. Wei, M. (2020). Social Distancing and Lockdown – An In ‐ trovert’s Paradise? An Empirical Inves ti ga ti on on the Associa ti on Between Introversion and the Psycholog ‐ ical Impact of COVID19 ‐Related Circumstan ti al Changes. Fron ti ers In Psychology, 11. Wijngaards, I., Sisouw de Zilwa, S. & Burger, M. J. (2020). Extraversion Moderates the Rela ti onship Between the Stringency of COVID ‐19 Protec ti ve Measures and De ‐ pressive Symptoms. Fron ti ers in psychology, 11, 568907. Wilmot, M., Wanberg, C., Kammeyer ‐Mueller, J. & Ones, D. (2019). Extraversion advantages at work: A quan ti ‐ ta ti ve review and synthesis of the meta ‐analy ti c evi ‐ dence. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 104(12), 1447 ‐1470. Yolles, M. & Fink, G. (2013). An Introduc ti on to Mindset Theory. SSRN Electronic Journal, Youssef, C. M. & Luthans, F. (2007). Posi ti ve organiza ti onal behavior in the workplace: The impact of hope, op ti ‐ mism, and resilience. Journal of Management, 33(5), 774–800.