Download - Constienciousness is Not Enough
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
1/44
1
Conscientiousness May Not Be Enough
L. A. Witt
Department of Management
University of New Orleans
New Orleans, LA 70148-1560
(504) 280-6960
(504) 280-3951 (fax)
In J. M. Cortina (Chair), N. M. Dudley (Chair), K. A. Orvis (Chair), & M.
R. Barrick (Discussant), Spotting the trees: Beyond the Big Five in
predicting performance. Presented at the meeting of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, Saturday, April 12,
2003 at 10:30am in Jasmine Bay (Royal Plaza).
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
2/44
2
Conscientiousness May Not Be Enough
Barrick, Mount, and Judge (2001) described two phases of research on relationships
between personality and job performance in the previous century. The first phase lasted until the
mid-1980s and was characterized by primary studies examining links between job performance
and individual scales from a wide variety of personality instruments. Barrick et al. noted that the
outcome of those 80+ years of research was that personality and performance were not
meaningfully related across traits and situations. Beginning in the mid-1980s, the second phase
yielded two key developments. One was the application of the Big Five (Goldberg, 1992)
model of personality (Fiske, 1949; Tupes & Christal, 1961) to selection research. Saucier and
Goldberg (2001) observed that the five factors are usually labeled extraversion (Factor I),
agreeableness (Factor II), conscientiousness (Factor III), emotional stability (Factor IV), and
intellect (Factor V). Although not without critics (e.g., Block, 1995; Eysenck, 1992), the Big
Five model has been a relatively well-accepted taxonomy of personality in the field of
personality psychology (Goldberg, 1992; John & Srivastava, 1999; McCrae & Costa, 1999;
Wiggins & Trapnell, 1997).
The other key development of the second phase was the application of meta-analysis to
summarize the relationships between the five factors and job performance across studies. Barrick
et al. (2001) cited 15 meta-analytic studies of personality-performance relationships (11 articles
and 4 conference presentations), the sum of which suggests that conscientiousness is the most
consistent among the Big Five factors to predict work outcomes across jobs. Indeed, an emerging
consensus suggests that with the exception of general mental ability, conscientiousness may be
the best individual differences predictor of job performance (e.g., Behling, 1998; Dunn, Mount,
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
3/44
3
Barrick, Ones, 1995). Based on evidence from the meta-analytic research, Barrick and Mount
(2000) advocated that applicants be hired on the basis of their conscientiousness scores as well as
their emotional stability scores.
Some researchers have argued that the measurement of broad personality factors as
reflected in the Big Five is preferable to the measurement of narrow facets when applying the
measurement to the prediction of job performance, itself a broad and complex criterion (Ones &
Viswesvaran, 1996). Paunonen (Paunonen, 1998; Paunonen & Ashton, 2001) has reported
evidence supporting the use of more narrow personality facets. Indeed, others have argued that
the Big Five model of personality may be too broad to predict behavior that is sensitive to
situational influences, such as work performance (Hough, 1992, Mershon & Gorsuch, 1988;
Mizes, Morgan, & Buder, 1989; Murtha, Kanfer, & Ackerman, 1996). Arthur, Woehr, and
Graziano (2001) explicitly suggested that reliance on the Big Five has led to a loss of precision
in measurement and a corresponding error in prediction. Consistent with Arthur et al.s (2001)
argument, I highlight recent research that has applied work in the personality literature on the
Abridged Big Five Dimensional Circumplex (Hofstee, de Raad, & Goldberg, 1992; Johnson &
Ostendorf, 1993) to selection research. Specifically, I discuss work examining Big Five
moderators of relationships between conscientiousness and work-related outcomes. The point of
this discussion is that conscientiousness is not by itself sufficient as a basis for hiring. In some
cases, hiring applicants high in conscientiousness may be destroying, rather than adding, value.
Conscientiousness and Work-Related Outcomes
Traits associated with conscientiousness include thoroughness and dependability versus
negligence and carelessness (Goldberg, 1993). Other labels for conscientiousness (McCrae &
Costa, 1985; Goldberg, 1992; Norman, 1963) include prudence (Hogan & Hogan, 1992),
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
4/44
4
conformity (Fiske, 1949), and will to achieve (Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981). Individuals
high in conscientiousness are organized, reliable, and responsible (McCrae & John, 1992).
Maintaining impulse control, they plan, delay gratification, and follow rules (John & Srivastava,
1999).
Application of the Big Five has been subject to criticisms that it lacks a theoretical
foundation and only provides a descriptive taxonomy (e.g., McAdams, 1992; Revelle, 1995).
However, researchers have described links between conscientiousness and work-related
outcomes as reflecting motivation. Motivation consists of three choices: (a) the choice to initiate
effort on a certain task, (b) the choice of expend a certain amount of effort, and (c) the choice to
persist in expending effort over a period of time (Campbell, 1976, p. 65). These three choices
are reflected in personality facets captured by conscientiousness (Mount, Barrick, & Strauss,
1999). Accordingly, Schmidt and Hunter (1992) have suggested that conscientiousness is the
most important trait-based motivation variable in the field.
Other things being equal, highly conscientious workers are generally successful, because
they are motivated to perform well (Mount & Barrick, 1995a). Conscientiousness predicts
withdrawal behaviors and core task performance, because high-conscientiousness workers are
more likely to maintain self-discipline (Colquitt & Simmering, 1998), be more effective at goal-
setting (Barrick, Mount, & Strauss, 1993; Gellatly, 1996), and persevere longer (Meyer &
Cuomo, 1962) than low-conscientiousness workers. Conscientiousness predicts interpersonal
facilitation, because highly conscientious workers respect social protocol, listen for and attend to
the details important to others, and are thorough in following up on matters of importance to
others. Conscientiousness predicts job dedication and organizational citizenship behaviors,
because highly conscientious workers observe rules, pay sufficient attention to detail to be able
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
5/44
5
to recognize what needs to be done, and pursue opportunities to do the right thing.
Conscientiousness predicts counterproductive behaviors, as highly conscientious workers
observe impulse control and respect social protocol.
Surprisingly, meta-analytic researchers have consistently reported very small average
observed validity coefficients of conscientiousness (e.g., r = .12 in Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein,
1991; r = .11 in Vinchur, Schippmann, Switzer, & Roth, 1998; r = .12 in Hurtz & Donovan,
2000). Reporting results of their second-order meta-analysis, Barrick et al. (2001) reported
variability in the validities of conscientiousness across studies (= .23; 90% credibility values
range from .10 to .35), suggesting the possible presence of moderator variables.
Aspects of the Situation as Moderators of Conscientiousness-Work Outcome Relationships
Before focusing on work that has examined Big Five moderators of relationships between
conscientiousness and work-related outcomes, it should be noted that an emerging literature has
identified aspects of the situation that moderate the relationships between conscientiousness and
work-related outcomes. Identified moderators include: (a) job satisfaction (Mount, Colbert,
Harter, & Barrick, 2000), (b) autonomy (Barrick & Mount, 1993), (c) performance expectancy,
performance valence, goal setting (Barrick, Mount, & Strauss, 1993), (d) perceptions of
organizational politics (Hochwarter, Witt, & Kacmar, 2000), and (e) goal choice (Gellatly,
1996). To this list, I add two additional situational moderators of relationships between
conscientiousness and job performance. One is situation strength operationalized in terms of rwg
of perceptions of organizational politics aggregated at the work unit level (Witt, Burke, &
Kacmar, 2001), which is presented in Figure 1. As shown there, conscientiousness was more
strongly related to supervisor ratings of job performance among workers in weak than strong
situations, consistent with Mischels (1977) arguments and previous findings (Barrick & Mount,
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
6/44
6
1993). The second is emotional exhaustion (Witt, Andrews, & Carlson, in press), which is
presented in Figure 2. As shown there, conscientiousness was positively related to objectively-
measured job performance (i.e., call volume of call center employees) among workers
experiencing low levels of emotional exhaustion but negatively related among those with high
levels of emotional exhaustion.
These studies have an interesting implication. When managers do their jobs,
conscientiousness has less of an impact on performance. For example, when managers enhance
the job satisfaction of their employees, provide sufficient autonomy, clearly establish goals and
expectations, take actions to reduce organizational politics, and provide emotional support to
diminish emotional exhaustion, workers are likely to understand what needs to be done and be
able to do it. In contrast, when managers are ineffective, then conscientious workers are likely to
be effective, and low-conscientious workers are likely to be ineffective, other things being equal.
An important question, however, is how often are other things equal, particularly when the
other things are individual differences in ability and personality?
Individual Differences as Moderators of Conscientiousness-Work Outcome Relationships
Selection researchers have primarily focused on the main effects of predictors rather than
on interactions (Goldstein, Zedeck, & Goldstein, 2002). Most of the studies in the 1990s
examined bivariate relationships between one personality dimension and performance (Arthur et
al., 2001). In studies in which more than one dimension were considered, the implicit assumption
was that their joint effects are independent and complementary (i.e., additive). However, Hogan,
Hogan, and Roberts (1996, p. 470) observed that interpreting a single scale in the absence of
other information is an ill-advised article of faith in traditional personality assessment. They
argued that the impact of a personality trait on behavior depends on other traits.
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
7/44
7
Work by personality researchers provides a foundation for examining multiplicative
relationships among the Big Five factors. Goldberg (1993) pointed out that a complete taxonomy
of personality attributes should include both the hierarchical and horizontal features of their
meanings. The hierarchical approach is based on a factor analysis approach to personality (i.e.,
personality items have principal loadings on one or another of the highest-level factors) and
emphasizes the vertical relations among the variables (e.g., from the most specific to the most
abstract) to the exclusion of the relationships among the variables at the same level (Goldberg,
1993, p. 171). It is this approach that yielded the Big Five model. In contrast, the horizontal
approach focuses on relations among traits in terms of their locations in multidimensional space
via the interpersonal circumplex (Leary, 1957). The circumplex features personality traits along
angular positions in either a two- or three-dimensional factor space. The two-dimensional
circumplex presents traits on the circle around bipolar, orthogonal coordinates of agreeableness
and extraversion (e.g., Wiggins, 1982). The three-dimensional circumplex is designed around
agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion (Peabody & Goldberg, 1989) or extraversion,
agreeableness, and emotional stability (Saucier, 1992a). An advantage of the horizontal approach
is that the interpersonal circumplex provides semantically cohesive clusters of traits that permits
fine-grained personality descriptions (Becker, 1999; Hofstee et al., 1992). The disadvantage is
that facet scores contribute no additional variance beyond what is explained by the five factors
employed in the hierarchical approach (see Hofstee, Ten-Berge, & Hendriks, 1998). As a result,
the horizontal approach has no usefulness for selection research beyond that offered by the
hierarchical approach.
As the previous circumplex models included only two or three of the five factors, Hofstee
et al. (1992) integrated the hierarchically-derived Big Five and horizontally-derived circumplex
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
8/44
8
models into an Abridged Big Five Dimensional Circumplex (AB5C). The AB5C is comprised of
ten two-dimensional circumplexes; it features all possible pairs of the five dimensions.
Specifically, it presents facets in terms of their two highest factor loadings; each trait is
characterized by its loadings on a subset of two of the five dimensions at a time. Despite
suggestions that the AB5C provides a guide for grouping facets of the Big Five in order to create
useful composites of the five factors (Barrick et al., 2001; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000), selection
researchers surprisingly paid little attention to the AB5C in the 1990s.
Emerging studies suggest that the other four factors of the Big Five model of personality
and other individual differences may moderate relationships between conscientiousness and
work-related outcomes. Review of these studies suggests that one reason that the main effect of
conscientiousness on work-related outcomes is lower than expected is that conscientiousness
does not have a positive relationship with work-related outcomes among individuals at average
and low levels of some of the other individual differences variables. It might also be argued that
a reason that the main effects of other Big Five traits are low is that the other Big Five traits do
not have a positive relationship with performance among individuals at average and low levels of
conscientiousness. Below, I discuss some of the empirical evidence and also apply the AB5C to
explain why each of the other four factors moderate relationships between conscientiousness and
work-related outcomes.
Extraversion
Alternative labels for extraversion (McCrae & Costa, 1985; Norman, 1963) include
surgency (Goldberg, 1992), confident self-expression (Fiske, 1949), and sociability (Hogan &
Hogan, 1992). Reflecting an energetic approach to the social and material world, extraversion
is associated with such traits as positive emotionality, activity, assertiveness, and sociability
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
9/44
9
(John & Srivastava, 1999, p. 121). Extraverts typically have enterprising vocational interests,
numerous friendships, and social skills (McCrae & Costa, 1999). Accordingly, researchers have
expected extraversion to predict performance. However, Barrick et al. (2001) reported average
observed validity coefficients of .07 for supervisor ratings and .06 for objective job performance
measures. They concluded that the relationship between extraversion and job performance could
not be distinguished from zero.
Recent studies have indicated that extraversion moderates the relationships between
conscientiousness and supervisor-rated counterproductive behavior (Witt, 2001, June), which is
presented in Figure 3, and supervisor-rated interpersonal deviance (Andrews, Witt, & Kacmar,
2003, April), which is presented in Figure 4. As shown in both figures, conscientiousness was
essentially unrelated to counterproductive and deviant behaviors among introverts but negatively
related among extroverts. On one hand, it is not surprising that low-conscientious extroverts
were the most likely to engage in counterproductive behaviors. Empirically-identified adjectives
describe the facets of the AB5C (Hofstee et al., 1992; Johnson & Ostendorf, 1993). The low-
conscientious extroverts are described as devil-may-care, exhibitionistic, gregarious, immodest,
boisterous, demonstrative, impulse-ridden, mischievous, rash, reckless, thoughtless, and unruly.
On the other hand, one might also not expect low-conscientious introverts to openly make fun of
others and engage in other public displays of inappropriate behaviors more so than low-
conscientious introverts, because they are described as inactive, indecisive, inefficient, lazy,
aimless, apathetic, non-persistent, passive, sluggish, unassured, wishy-washy, and unenergetic.
Similarly, the high-conscientious introverts are unlikely to manifest such inappropriate
behaviors, as they have a task orientation and are deliberate, formal, prudish, reserved,
restrained, serious, cautious, conservative, and thrifty. It is also not surprising that the high-
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
10/44
10
conscientious extroverts, who are described as persistent, purposeful, self-confident, enterprising,
firm, and vigorous, also did not manifest high levels of counterproductive and deviant behaviors.
As shown in Figure 5, conscientiousness was unrelated to the probability of being hired
among introverts but strongly related among extroverts (Witt, 2002). In this study, interview
performance was the sole criterion of selection (i.e., hire vs. do not hire decision) at the point the
data were collected. Perhaps conscientious introverts were unable to demonstrate their
conscientious attributes during the interview.
As shown in Figure 6, conscientiousness was more strongly related to sales performance
among extroverts than introverts (Witt, 2001, April). Interestingly, the low-conscientious
extroverts those who are exhibitionistic, gregarious, immodest, and demonstrative were the
most effective at sales. Considering that these workers were least likely to follow rules and get
overly involved in paperwork, it is not surprising that they would excel in sales jobs in which no
follow-up or customer service functions are required. However, the story was different in non-
sales jobs. As shown in Figure 7, while conscientiousness was more strongly related to
supervisor-rated job performance among extroverts than introverts, the persistent, purposeful,
and enterprising high-conscientious extroverts received the highest performance ratings (Witt,
2002). In contrast, the low-conscientious extroverts received the lowest performance ratings.
Agreeableness
Other labels for agreeableness (McCrae & Costa, 1985; Goldberg, 1992; Norman, 1963),
include social adaptability, (Fiske, 1949), friendly compliance (Digman & Takemoto-Chock,
1981), and likability (Hogan & Hogan, 1992). Agreeableness refers to such traits as flexibility,
generosity, sympathy, selflessness, cooperativeness, helpfulness, tolerance, and courtesy
(Digman, 1990). Some researchers have argued that this factor is the primary construct in the
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
11/44
11
assessment of individual differences (e.g., Havill, Besevegis, & Mouroussaki, 1998). However,
evidence suggests that agreeableness is only relevant to job performance in situations where joint
action and collaboration are needed (Mount, Barrick, & Stewart, 1998). Situations characterized
by a fairly high level of interpersonal interaction require tolerance, selflessness, and flexibility.
Individuals high in agreeableness strive for common understanding, maintain social affiliations,
and deal with conflict collaboratively or cooperatively (Digman, 1990).
Goleman (1998) suggested that highly conscientious who people lack interpersonal
competence are likely to contribute to dysfunctional outcomes (Goleman, 1998). Using
agreeableness as a proxy for interpersonal competence, Witt, Burke, Barrick, and Mount (2002)
empirically tested that notion. They found that agreeableness moderated the relationship between
conscientiousness and supervisor-rated job performance in five of seven samples. Figure 8
presents an example of their findings. As shown there, conscientiousness was more strongly
related to job performance among workers high than low in agreeablness. The kind, organized,
sincere, cooperative, and helpful (Hofstee et al., 1992; Johnson & Ostendorf, 1993) workers high
in both conscientiousness and agreeableness received the highest ratings of job performance.
More directly testing Golemans argument, Witt and Ferris (in press) investigated the
moderating effects of social skill and social skill awareness on the relationships between
conscientiousness and interpersonal facilitation, sales performance, and organizational
citizenship behaviors. Their findings, an example of which is presented in Figure 9, were
somewhat similar to those reported by Witt et al. (2002). Conscientiousness was positively
related to the various aspects of performance among socially skilled workers. However,
conscientiousness was negatively related to performance among workers low in social skill.
Social skill reflects ability (Riggio, 1986; Topping, Bremner, & Holmes, 2000) and is learned
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
12/44
12
(Gesten, Weissberg, Amish, & Smith, 1987; Riggio, 1986). Hence, it is possible that other
acquired individual differences in ability may have interactive effects with conscientiousness on
work-related outcomes. Focusing only on Big Five moderators may be limiting our potential
understanding of how, when, and why conscientiousness affects work-related outcomes.
Intellect/Openness to Experience
Other labels for intellect (e.g., Fiske, 1949; Goldberg, 1992; Saucier & Goldberg,
2001) include culture (Norman, 1963; Tupes & Christal, 1961), autonomy (Hendriks,
Hofstee, & De Raad, 1999), openness to experience (McCrae & Costa, 1985), intellectance
(Hogan & Hogan, 1992), and imagination (Goldberg, 1993; Saucier, 1992b). As one of the Big
Five factors, intellect is distinct from GMA, although they are related (Holland, Dollinger,
Holland, & MacDonald, 1995). Intellect encompasses a broad range of intellectual, creative,
and artistic inclinations, preferences, and skills found foremost in highly original and creative
individuals (John & Srivastava, 1999, p. 114) and describes the breadth, depth, originality, and
complexity of an individuals mental and experiential life (p. 121).
Workers high in intellect think beyond precedent or tradition (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen,
& Barrick, 1999), can effectively function autonomously (Judge et al., 1999; Saucier, 2000), and
understand the reasons for workplace change (Wanberg & Banas, 2000). In contrast to the
relatively imperceptive individuals low in intellect, inventive workers high in intellect identify
not-so-obvious solutions and see opportunities for adding value that others may miss. Recent
primary studies suggest that intellect predicts unique variance in job performance beyond that
accounted for my cognitive ability and the other Big Five constructs (Bing & Lounsbury, 2000)
and also predicts university-level academic performance (Lall, Holmes, Brinkmeyer, Johnson, &
Yatko, 1999; Rothstein, Paunonen, Rush, & King, 1994). However, despite consensus that
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
13/44
13
performance in many jobs requires workers to think outside the box to develop work solutions
as well as embrace change (Hitt, 2000; Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, & Welbourne, 1999; Lazer &
Shaw, 2000), the meta-analytic studies have clearly indicated that intellect does not predict job
performance across jobs and studies (e.g., Hurtz & Donovan, 2000). The average observed
validity coefficients have been barely above zero. However, intellect does predict training
proficiency (Salgado, 1997).
Figure 10 provides an example of how intellect moderated the relationships between
conscientiousness and performance outcomes. As shown there, conscientiousness was more
strongly to job performance among workers high than low in intellect. Perhaps not surprisingly,
high-conscientiousness workers who were cognitively flexible and open to change (i.e., high in
intellect) those described as learned, intellectual, analytical, clever, curious, organized,
perceptive, and refined (De Raad, Hendriks, & Hofstee, 1994; Hofstee et al., 1992; Johnson &
Ostendorf, 1993) were seen as more effective performers than high-conscientiousness workers
who were fairly rigid and resistant to change (i.e., low in intellect and described as rule-abiding,
conventional, predictable, and traditional).
Emotional Stability
Emotional Stability reflects such traits as nervousness and moodiness versus
imperturbability and stability (Goldberg, 1993). Other labels for emotional stability (Goldberg,
1992; Norman, 1963) include adjustment (Hogan & Hogan, 1992), ego strength (Digman &
Takemoto-Chock, 1981), emotional control (Fiske, 1949), and neuroticism (McCrae & Costa,
1985). McCrae and John (1992) described this factor on the negative pole using such terms as
self-pitying, unstable, worrying, anxious, touchy, and tense. They noted that emotionally
unstable individualsexperience low self-esteem and pessimistic attitudes. Such individuals see
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
14/44
14
themselves as victims, require considerable emotional support from others, doubt their abilities,
and experience less satisfaction and more stress than emotionally stable people (Judge, Locke,
Durham, & Kluger, 1998; Hogan & Briggs, 1984). They also tend to see situations in a negative
light and overreact to situations. Emotionally stable people, however, generally remain on an
even keel and have little anxiety.
Not surprisingly, evidence suggests that emotional stability also moderates the
relationships between conscientiousness and: (a) length of employment (Witt & Jones, 2003),
which is presented in Figure 11, and (b) interpersonal facilitation (Witt, 2001, November), which
is presented in Figure 12. As shown in both figures, conscientiousness was positively related to
these work outcomes among workers high in emotional stability workers but negatively related
among workers low in emotional stability. The self-disciplined, consistent, persevering, and
steady workers (Hofstee et al., 1992; Johnson & Ostendorf, 1993) high in both conscientiousness
and emotional stability remained on the job longer and also managed relationships more
effectively than other workers. In contrast, the overanxious, fussy, and particular workers high in
conscientiousness and low in emotional stability not only quit first and but also received the
lowest ratings of interpersonal facilitation.
Conclusion
Golding (1975) argued that caution should be applied when generalizing the results of a
study finding an interaction, as interactions often do not replicate. The interactions across
multiple samples presented here may provide some confidence that there is reason to consider
that the joint effects of conscientiousness with the other Big Five factors may be multiplicative.
My colleagues and I have taken some steps to take into account for alternative explanations. For
example, we have used the other Big Five factors, demographic variables, and even GMA as
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
15/44
15
covariates, when available and conceptually appropriate. In one study (Witt, 2002), I even used
four different personality measures the Hogan Personality Inventory (Hogan & Hogan, 1992),
the Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ; Saville, Holdsworth, Nyfield, Cramp, &
Mabey, 1984), Goldbergs (1999, Appendix A) Big Five factor markers in the International
Personality Item Pool, and the Mount & Barrick (1995b) Personal Characteristics Inventory
and found essentially the same form of the interaction across four samples.
Small Effect Sizes
A criticism that my colleagues and I often encounter from reviewers is that the findings
are weak; that is, only a very small percentage of variance is explained. To those of you
interested in pursuing research along the lines of the studies briefly overviewed here, I invite you
to consider two points. First, the approach most commonly used to test for the presence of
interactions hierarchical moderated multiple regression analysis (Aiken & West, 1991; Cohen
& Cohen, 1983), in which one examines the statistical significance of the F-test of the
incremental change () in R2brought about by adding the cross-product term of the predictor
and moderator as an additional variable in the equation (after accounting for the linear effects of
the predictor and moderator) typically yields very small increments in R2. In their reviews of
the social science literature, both Chaplin (1991) and Champoux and Peters (1987) reported that
interactions found in non-experimental studies typically accounted for 1-3% of the variance.
Similarly, Evans (1985, p. 417) reported results of a Monte Carlo simulation:
...when a genuine interaction exists, even under the most extreme conditions, we
find that the interaction usually explains at least 1% of the variance; when there is
no interaction, the interaction term invariably explains less than 1% of the
variance.
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
16/44
16
Furthermore, interactions are difficult to detect, because the F-test is sensitive to power.
At least four factors contribute to a loss of power. First, as interactions typically yield small
increments in R2, only interactions computed from large-sample data sets will be statistically
significant. Second, measurement error or non-optimal distributions in the components of the
cross-product term typically result in downward bias in the parameter estimates of the interaction
terms in the model (Aiken & West, 1991; Fuller & Hidiriglou, 1978; McClelland & Judd, 1993).
Third is the multicollinearity between the components of the interaction term and the
multiplicative composite (Morris, Sherman, & Mansfield, 1986), although this perspective has
not met with universal acceptance (Aiken & West, 1991; Cohen, 1978; Cronbach, 1987; Dunlap
& Kemery, 1987; Paunonen & Jackson, 1988). Another is the limited number of response
options on the criterion variable scale (Russell, Pinto, & Bobko, 1991). Because moderators are
difficult to detect, researchers typically conclude the non-existence of an interaction. In cases
where this conclusion is erroneous (i.e., a Type II error), the implications can be far-reaching. As
pointed out by Aguinis and Stone-Romero (1997), failing to assess interactions can have impact
on both: (a) theory, when hypotheses involving interaction effects are considered invalid, and (b)
management practice, when decisions are made to use personnel selection tests. Therefore,
researchers have made efforts to overcome the power limitations. Suggestions have included: (a)
increasing the reliability of the measures (Dunlap & Kemery, 1988; Evans, 1985), (b)
overselecting for extreme observations of the predictor (McClelland & Judd, 1993), (c) applying
latent variable modeling for estimating maximum-likelihood parameters and testing their
significance (Jaccard & Wan, 1995), and (d) increasing overall sample size (Aguinis & Stone-
Romero, 1997).
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
17/44
17
Frankly, we are likely to continue to be subject to the limitations of the R2in moderated
multiple regression analyses, as well as two derivatives -- the semi-partial correlation of the
interaction term (Cohen, 1978) and the standardized impact of the moderator on the regression
slope (Champoux, & Peters, 1987). The chief problem is that these approaches provide
conservative estimates of the effect size of the interaction term, because they represent the
average effect of the moderator across the entire range of values of the predictor variable.
However, in offering my second point, I invite you to consider that the problem of a very
small percentage of variance being explained plagues much of personality-based selection
research. Indeed, the main effects of the Big Five personality constructs typically yield very
small effect sizes. Indeed, meta-analyses suggest that the observed effect size of
conscientiousness on job performance may only be about .10 (Salgado, 1997), which of course is
equal to an R-squared of .01. Thus, a substantial literature with at least 16 meta-analytic studies
is built on constructs that may independently account for only 1-3% of the variance in job
performance (note that no form of correction is being mentioned here). Moreover, these mean
observed correlations do not reflect the incremental variance of these personality constructs over-
and-above the variance of any appropriate control variables or related constructs. Thus, I suggest
that our typical, albeit small, effect sizes may be similar in size to the main effects of well-
researched personality constructs, whose practical utility seem to have been accepted as
promising. Moreover, the practical impact of small effect sizes can be quite large (Abelson,
1985; Fichman, 1999; Rosenthal, 1990), and our findings have been with the typical range for
interaction effects in non-experimental studies (Champoux & Peters, 1987; Chaplin, 1991).
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
18/44
18
Implications for Practice
Researchers have argued that the use of the broad personality factors reflected in the Big
Five has yielded not only a loss of precision in measurement but also an error in prediction
(Arthur et al., 2001; Paunonen & Ashton, 2001). A possible solution would be to measure all of
the relevant facets of the AB5C. With each facet assessed by 10, 20, or more items, such an
approach would lead to a very long personality measure and thus perhaps be impractical for
application for selection in many organizations. Moreover, the facets scores may not add
variance beyond the Big Five dimensions (Hofstee et al., 1998). Further research along the lines
of the present study may yield justification for scoring protocol that would tap relevant
interactions among the Big Five dimensions that could be applied using very brief Big Five
measures. Indeed, examining conceptually appropriate interactions would permit an assessment
of how the facets of the AB5C are related to work-related outcomes when using conventionally
scored and commercially available Big Five measures.
Human resources professionals use validity evidence to make decisions as to which of the
five factor model scores to use for making selection decisions. When based on traditional
validity evidence (i.e., examining only main effects) that may indicate only conscientiousness
and emotional stability are statistically significant predictors of the relevant criteria, such
decisions may lead to the hiring of less-than-optimal candidates. For example, if human
resources policy dictates that conscientiousness is the only personality-based selection criterion,
then among the selected candidates may be persons high in conscientiousness but low in
agreeableness. Such individuals may be concerned with doing things the right way but
uncooperative in getting along with others. Accordingly, I invite you to consider that
conscientiousness is not enough.
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
19/44
19
Directions for Future Research
A limitation of applying the AB5C is that only two dimensions can be considered
simultaneously. Work is needed to expand the AB5C. With the development of an expanded Big
Five-based circumplex, future researchers may be able to consider three, four, or even five
dimensions simultaneously. Taking into account multiple factors simultaneously would be
helpful. Considering two factors at a time offers only a glimpse of the tip of the iceberg in terms
of understanding the complexity of personality as a predictor of work-related outcomes.
The AB5C provides a helpful descriptive taxonomy, but it is insufficient as a theoretical
basis for selection research. Recent work suggests that elements of the Big Five other than
conscientiousness reflect motivation (Judge & Ilies, 2002). Additional work is needed to link
elements of the AB5C to theoretical explanations of effectiveness at work, such as motivation
theories.
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
20/44
20
References
Abelson, R. (1985). A variance explanation paradox: When a little explains a lot.Psychological
Bulletin, 97,129-133.
Aguinis, H., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (1997). Methodological artifacts in moderated multiple
regression and their effects on statistical power.Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 192-
206.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991).Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newsbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Andrews, M. C., Witt, L. A., & Kacmar, K. M. (2003, April).Extraversion and interpersonal
deviance on the job. To be presented at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Orlando.
Arthur, W., Jr., Woehr, D. J., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Personality testing in employment
settings: Problems and issues in the application of typical selection practices.Personnel
Review, 30, 657-676.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationship between
the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance.Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78,111-118.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2000). Select on conscientiousness and emotional stability. In
E. A. Locke (Ed.),Handbook of principles of organizational behavior(15-28). Oxford,
England: Blackwell Publishers.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). The FFM personality dimensions and job
performance: Meta-Analysis of meta-analyses.International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 9, 9-30.
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
21/44
21
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. P. (1993). Conscientiousness and performance of
sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal setting.Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78, 715-722.
Becker, P. (1999). Beyond the Big Five.Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 511-530.
Behling, O. (1998). Employee selection: Will intelligence and conscientiousness do the job?
Academy of Management Executive, 12, 77-86.
Bing, M. N., & Lounsbury, J. W. (2000). Openness and job performance in U. S.-based Japanese
manufacturing companies.Journal of Business and Psychology, 14, 515-522.
Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description.
Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187-215.
Campbell, J. P. (1976). Psychometric theory. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial
and organizational psychology(pp. 185-222). Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Champoux, J., & Peters, W. (1987). Form, effect size, and power in moderated regression
analysis.Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 243-255.
Chaplin, W. F. (1991). The next generation of moderator research in personality psychology.
Journal of Personality, 59, 143-178.
Cohen, J. (1978). Partialled products are interactions; Partialled powers are curve components.
Psychological Bulletin, 85, 858-866.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983).Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavior
sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Colquitt, J., & Simmering, M. (1998). Conscientiousness, goal orientation, and motivation to
learn during the learning process: A longitudinal study.Journal of Applied Psychology,
83,654-665.
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
22/44
22
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992).Revised NEO personality inventory and Five-Factor
model inventory professional manual.Odessa, FL.: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Cronbach, L. J. (1987). Statistical tests for moderator variables: Flaws in analyses recently
proposed.Psychological Bulletin, 102, 414-417.
De Raad, B., Hendriks, A. A. J., & Hofstee, W. K. B. (1994). The Big Five: A tip of the iceberg
of individual differences. In C. F. Halverson, G. A. Kohnstamm, and R. P. Martin (Eds.),
The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood(pp.
91-109). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Digman, J. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model.Annual Review of
Psychology, 41, 417-440.
Digman, J. M., & Takemoto-Chock, N. K. (1981). Factors in the natural language of personality:
Re-analysis, comparison, and interpretation of six major studies.Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 16, 148-170.
Dunlap, W. P., & Kemery, E. R. (1987). Failure to detect moderator effects: Is multicollinearity
the problem?Psychological Bulletin, 102, 418-420.
Dunlap, W. P., & Kemery, E. R. (1988). Effects of predictor intercorrelations and reliabilities on
moderated multiple regression. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
41, 248-258.
Dunn, W. S., Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Relative importance of
personality and general mental ability in managers' judgments of applicant qualifications.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 500-510.
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
23/44
23
Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in
moderated multiple regression. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
36, 305-323.
Eysenck, H. J. (1992). Four ways five factors are notbasic.Personality and individual
differences, 13, 667-673.
Fichman, M. (1999). Variance explained: Why size does not (always) matter. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 21,295-331.
Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency in the factorial structures of personality ratings from different
sources.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 329-344.
Fuller, W. A., & Hidiroglou, M. A. (1978). Regression estimation after correcting for
attenuation.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 73, 99-104.
Gellatly, I. (1996). Conscientiousness and task performance: Test of a cognitive process model.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 474-482.
Gesten, E. L., Weissberg, R. P., Amish, P. L., & Smith, J. K. (1987). Social problem-solving
training: A skills-based approach to prevention and treatment. In C. A. Maher and J. E.
Zins (Eds.),Psychoeducational interventions in the schools: Methods and procedures of
enhancing student competence(pp. 197-210). New York: Pergamon.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality": The big-five factor structure.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big Five factor structure.
Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of personality traits: Vertical and horizontal aspects. In D.
C. Funder, R. D. Parke, C. Tomlinson-Keasey, & K. Widamin (Eds.), Studying lives
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
24/44
24
through time: Personality and development(pp. 169-188), Washington, D.C.: American
Psychological Association.
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the
lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. J. Deary, F. De Fruyt,
and F. Ostendorf (Eds.),Personality psychology in Europe, Vol. 7(pp. 7-28), Tilburg,
The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
Golding, S. L. (1975). Flies in the ointment: Methodological problems in the analysis of the
percentage of variance due to persons and situations.Psychological Bulletin, 82, 278-
288.
Goldstein, H. W., Zedeck, S. & Goldstein, I. L. (2002). g: Is this your final answer? Human
Performance, 15, 123-142.
Hendriks, A. A. J., Hofstee, W. K. B., & De Raad, B. (1999). The Five-Factor Personality
Inventory (FFPI).Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 307-325.
Hitt, M. A. (2000). The new frontier: Transformation of management for the new millennium.
Organizational Dynamics, 28, 6-17.
Hochwarter, W. A., Witt, L. A., & Kacmar, K. M. (2000). Perceptions of organizational politics
as a moderator of the relationship between conscientiousness and job performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 472-478.
Hofstee, W. K. B., de Raad, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (1992). Integration of the Big Five and
circumplex approaches to trait structure.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
65, 563-576.
Hofstee, W. K. B., Ten-Berge, J. M. F., & Hendriks, A. A. J. (1998). How to score
questionnaires.Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 897-909.
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
25/44
25
Hogan, R. T., & Hogan, J. (1992).Hogan Personality Inventory manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan
Assessment Systems.
Hogan, R. T., Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Personality measurement and employment
decisions.American Psychologist, 51, 469-477.
Hough, L. M. (1992). The "Big Five" personality variables construct confusion: Description
versus prediction.Human Performance, 5, 139-155.
Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,869-879.
Jaccard, J., & Wan, C. K. (1995). Measurement error in the analysis of interaction effects
between continuous predictors using multiple regression: Multiple indicator and
structural equation approaches.Psychological Bulletin, 117, 348-357.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and
theoretical perspectives. In L. Pervin and O. P. John (Eds.),Handbook of personality:
Theory and research(Second edition; pp. 102-138). New York: Guilford.
Johnson, J. A., & Ostendorf, F. (1993). Clarification of the Five-Factor Model with the abridged
Big Five dimensional circumplex.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65,
563-576.
Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The Big Five personality
traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span.Personnel
Psychology,52, 621-652.
Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-
analytic review.Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797-807.
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
26/44
26
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial coping with
organizational change: A dispositional perspective.Journal of Applied Psychology, 84,
107-122.
Lall, R., Holmes, E. K., Brinkmeyer, K. R., Johnson,W. B., & Yatko, B. R. (1999). Personality
characteristics of future military leaders.Military Medicine, 164, 906-910.
Lazer, W., & Shaw, E. H. (2000). Executive insights: Global marketing management: At the
dawn of the new millennium.Journal of International Marketing, 8, 65-77.
Leary, T. (1957).Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald Press.
McAdams, D. P. (1992). The five-factor model in personality: A critical appraisal. Journal of
Personality, 60, 329-361.
McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and
moderator effects.Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376-390.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1985). Updating Norman's "adequacy taxonomy": Intelligence
and personality dimensions in natural language and in questionnaires.Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 710-721.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L. Pervin and O.
P. John (Eds.),Handbook of personality: Theory and research(Second edition; pp. 139-
153). New York: Guilford.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its
applications.Journal of Personality,60,175-216.
Mershon, B., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1988). Number of factors in the personality sphere: Does
increase in factors increase predictability of real life criteria?Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 55, 675-680.
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
27/44
27
Meyer, H., & Cuomo, S. (1962). Who leaves? A study of background characteristics of engineers
associated with turnover. Crotonville, NY: Behavioral Science Research Division,
General Electric Company.
Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler
(Eds.),Personality at the crossroads:Current issues in interactional psychology(pp.
333-352). Lawrence Earlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.
Mizes, J. S., Morgan, G. D., & Buder, J. (1989). Global versus specific cognitive measures and
their relationship to assertion deficits.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49,
177-182.
Morris, J. H., Sherman, J. D., & Mansfield, E. R. (1986). Failures to detect moderator effects
with ordinary least-squares moderated multiple regression: Some reasons and a remedy.
Psychological Bulletin, 99, 282-288.
Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995a). The Big Five personality dimensions: Implications for
research and practice in human resources management. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.),Research in
personnel and human resources management(Vol. 13, pp. 153-200). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995b). Manual for the Personal Characteristics Inventory.
Libertyville, IL: Wonderlic Personnel Test, Inc.
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Strauss, J. P. (1999). The joint relationship of conscientiousness
and ability with performance: Test of the interaction hypothesis.Journal of Management,
25, 707-721.
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
28/44
28
Mount, M. K., Colbert, A. E., Harter, J. K., & Barrick, M. R. (2000, August).Does job
satisfaction moderate the relationship between conscientiousness and job performance?
Paper presented at the annual conference of the Academy of Management, Toronto.
Murtha, T. C., Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1996). Toward an interactionist taxonomy of
personality and situations: An integrative situational-dispositional representation of
personality traits.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 193-207.
Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor
structure in peer nomination personality ratings.Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 66, 574-583.
Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1996). Bandwidth-fidelity dilemma in personality measurement
for personnel selection.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 609-626.
Paunonen, S. V. (2001). Hierarhical organization of personality and prediction of behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 538-556.
Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big Five factors and the facets and the prediction of
behavior.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 524-539.
Paunonen, S. V., & Jackson, D. N. (1988). Type I error rates for moderated multiple regression
analysis.Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 569-573.
Peabody, D., & Goldberg, L. R. (1989). Some determinants of factor structures from personality-
trait descriptors.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 552-567.
Revelle, W. (1995). Personality processes.Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 295-328.
Riggio, R. E. (1986). Assessment of basic social skills.Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51,649-660.
Rosenthal, R. (1990). How are we doing in soft psychology.American Psychologist, 45,775-
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
29/44
29
776.
Rothstein, M. G., Paunonen, S. V., Rush, J. C., & King, G. A. (1994). Personality and cognitive
ability predictors of performance in graduate business school.Journal of Educational
Psychology, 86, 515-530.
Russell, C. J., Pinto, J. K. & Bobko, P. (1991). Appropriate moderated regression and
inappropriate research strategy: A demonstration of information loss due to scale
coarseness.Applied Psychological Measurement, 15, 257-266.
Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European
community.Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 30-43.
Saucier, G. (1992a). Benchmarks: Integrating affective and interpersonal circles with the Big-
Five personality factors.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 1025-1035.
Saucier, G. (1992b). Openness versus intellect: Much ado about nothing?European Journal of
Personality, 6, 381-386.
Saucier, G. (2000). Isms and the structure of social attitudes.Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 78, 366-385
Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1996). The language of personality: Lexical perspectives on the
five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality:
Theoretical perspectives(pp. 21-50). New York: Guilford.
Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (2001). Lexical studies of indigenous personality factors:
Premises, products, and prospects.Journal of Personality, 69, 847-880.
Saville, P., Holdsworth, R., Nyfield, G., Cramp, L., & Mabey, W. (1984). Occupational
Personality Questionnaire Manual. Thames Ditton, Surrey, England: Saville-
Holdsworth, Ltd.
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
30/44
30
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1992). Causal modeling of processes determining job
performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 89-92.
Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job
performance: A meta-analytic review.Personnel Psychology, 44, 703-742.
Topping, K., Bremner, W., & Holmes, E. A. (2000). Social competence: The social construction
of the concept. In R. Bar-On and J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional
intelligence(pp. 28-39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961).Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings
(USAF WADC Tech. Note No. 61-97). Lackland Air Force Base, TX: U. S. Air Force.
Vinchur, A., Schippmann, J., Switzer, F., & Roth, P. (1998). A meta-analytic review of
predictors of job performance for salespeople.Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 586-
597.
Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a
reorganizing workplace.Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 132-142.
Wiggins, J. (1982). Circumplex models of interpersonal behavior in clinical psychology. In P. C.
Kendall and J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in clinical psychology
(pp. 183-221). New York: Wiley.
Wiggins, J., & Trapnell, P. D. (1997). Personality structure: The return of the Big Five. In R.
Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.),Handbook of personality psychology(pp. 737-
765). San Diego: Academic Press.
Witt, L. A. (2001, April).Extroverts low in conscientiousness produce the greatest sales volume.
Presented at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San
Diego.
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
31/44
31
Witt, L. A. (2001, November).Emotional stability and conscientious as interactive predictors of
job performance. Presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Management
Association, New Orleans.
Witt, L. A. (2002). The interactive effects of extraversion and conscientiousness on job
performance.Journal of Management, 28, 835-851.
Witt, L. A. (2002, April). Conscientiousness and intellect: Both necessary for performance?
Presented at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
Toronto.
Witt, L. A. (2002, June).Extraversion and problem behavior on the job.Presented at the
American Psychological Society conference, New Orleans.
Witt, L. A., Andrews, M., & Carlson, D. (In press). When conscientiousness isnt enough:
Emotional exhaustion and call volume performance among call center customer service
representatives.Journal of Management.
Witt, L. A., Burke, L. A., Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2002). The interactive effects of
conscientiousness and agreeableness on job performance.Journal of Applied Psychology,
87, 161-169.
Witt, L. A., Burke, L. A., & Kacmar, K. M. (2001, August). When does personality matter:
Testing Mischel's Argument using rwgj. Presented at the meeting of the Academy of
Management, Washington, D. C.
Witt, L. A., & Ferris, G. R. (In press). Social skill as moderator of the conscientiousness-
performance relationship: Convergent results across four studies.Journal of Applied
Psychology.
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
32/44
32
Witt, L. A., & Jones, J. W. (2003, April). Very particular people quit first. To be presented at the
meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando.
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
33/44
33
Figure 1: The Impact of the Situation Strength on the Conscientiousness-
Performance Relationship
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
Conscientiousness
Job
Performanc
Low Agreement
Avg Agreement
High Agreement
-1 SD +1 SD
Source: Witt, Burke, and Kacmar, Academy of Management meeting, 2001 (1
sample)
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
34/44
34
Figure 2: The Impact of the Emotional Exhaustion on the Conscientiousness-
Objective Performance Relationship
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
Conscientiousness
CallV
olume
Low Emotional Exhaustion
Avg Emotional Exhaustion
High Emotional Exhaustion
-1 SD +1 SD
Source: Witt, Andrews, and Carlson,Journal of Management, in press (1sample)
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
35/44
35
Figure 3: The Impact of Extraversion on the Conscientiousness-
Counterproductive Behavior Relationship
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
Conscientiousness
CounterproductiveBehavi
Low Extroversion
Avg Extroversion
High Extroversion
-1 SD +1 SD
Source: Witt, American Psychological Society meeting, 2002 (1 sample)
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
36/44
36
Figure 4: The Impact of Extraversion on the Conscientiousness-Interpersonal
Deviance Relationship
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
Conscientiousness
Interperso
nalDeviance
Low Extroversion
Avg Extroversion
High Extroversion
-1 SD +1 SD
Source: Andrews, Witt, & Kacmar, SIOP meeting, 2003 (1 sample)
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
37/44
37
Figure 5: The Impact of Extraversion on the Conscientiousness-Interview
Performance (Hire vs. No-Hire) Relationship
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Extroversion
ProbabilityofBeingHired
Low Conscientiousness
Avg Conscientiousness
High Conscientiousness
-1 SD +1 SD
Source: Witt,Journal of Management, 2002 (1 sample)
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
38/44
38
Figure 6: The Impact of Extraversion on the Conscientiousness-Sales
Performance Relationship
1.7
1.75
1.8
1.85
1.9
1.95
2
Extroversion
Sales
Performance
Low Conscientiousness
Avg Conscientiousness
High Conscientiousness
-1 SD +1 SD
Source: Witt, SIOP meeting, 2001 (1 sample)
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
39/44
39
Figure 7: The Impact of Extraversion on the Conscientiousness-Supervisor-
Rated Performance Relationship
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Extroversion
JobPerformance
Low Conscientiousness
Avg Conscientiousness
High Conscientiousness
-1 SD +1 SD
.
Source: Witt,Journal of Management, 2002 (1 of 3 samples)
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
40/44
40
Figure 8: The Impact of Agreeableness on the Conscientiousness-Supervisor-
Rated Performance Relationship
2.9
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
Conscientiousness
JobPerformance
Low Agreeableness
Avg Agreeableness
High Agreeableness
-1 SD +1 SD
Source: Witt, Burke, Barrick, and Mount,JAP, 2002 (1 of 5 samples out of 7)
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
41/44
41
Figure 9: The Impact of Social Skill on the Conscientiousness-Supervisor-
Rated Performance Relationship
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
Conscientiousness
Performance
Low Social Skill
Avg Social Skill
High Social Skill
-1 SD +1 SD
Source: Witt and Ferris,JAP, in press (1 of 4 samples)
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
42/44
42
Figure 10: The Impact of Intellect (i.e., Openness to Experience) on the
Conscientiousness-Supervisor-Rated Performance Relationship
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
Conscientiousness
JobPerformance
Low Intellect
Avg Intellect
High Intellect
-1 SD +1 SD
Source: Witt, SIOP meeting, 2002 (1 of 3 samples)
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
43/44
43
Figure 11: The Impact of Emotional Stability on the Conscientiousness-
Length of Employment Relationship
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
Conscientiousness
LengthofE
mployment
Low Emotional Stablity
Avg Emotional Stablity
High Emotional Stablity
-1 SD +1 SD
Source: Witt and Jones, SIOP meeting, 2003
-
8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough
44/44
44
Figure 12: The Impact of Emotional Stability on the Conscientiousness-
Supervisor-Rated Interpersonal Facilitation Relationship
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
Conscientiousness
InterpersonalFacilitation
Low Emotional Stablity
Avg Emotional Stablity
High Emotional Stablity
-1 SD +1 SD
Source: Witt, Southern Management Association meeting, 2001