predicting the form and direction of work role performance from the big 5 model of personality...

Predicting the form and direction of workrole performance from the Big 5 model ofpersonality traits

ANDREW NEAL1*, GILLIAN YEO2, ANNETTE KOY1 AND TANIA XIAO1

1The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia2The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

Summary This research examined the prediction of the form and direction of work role performance from the Big 5model of personality traits. Nine dimensions of work role performance are created by cross-classifying theform of work role behavior (proficient, adaptive, and proactive) with the level at which that behaviorcontributes to effectiveness (individual, team, and organizational). The authors collected self-reportmeasurements of personality from 1447 government employees and supervisor ratings of performance.Openness to experience and agreeableness had opposing effects on individual proactivity – openness waspositively related, whereas agreeableness was negatively related to this dimension. Openness to experiencealso had opposing effects on the form of work role performance – it was positively related to individual andorganizational proactivity but negatively related to team and organizational proficiency. Conscientiousnesswas a stronger predictor of individual task proficiency than the remaining eight dimensions, whereas thereverse was true for neuroticism. Extraversion was negatively related to individual proficiency. Using a broadtaxonomy of performance that incorporates a theoretical framework for distinguishing between constructsshows promise for identifying which personality traits are important for which aspects of work roleperformance. Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: job performance; personality; work roles; proactivity; adaptivity

Introduction

Changes to the nature of work over the past 30 years have broadened the types of role behaviors that organizations

require to be effective (Ilgen & Pulakos, 1999). Traditionally, work roles have been defined in terms of a set of tasks

that the individual has to perform, and performance has been assessed in terms of the proficiency with which

individuals carry out those tasks (Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, &Weick, 1970; Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, & Sager,

1993). As work systems have become more complex and uncertain, work roles have become more flexible. As a

result, other forms of behavior have emerged as important for the modern workplace, two of the most prominent

being adaptivity (Allworth & Hesketh, 1999; Hesketh & Neal, 1999; Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, & Plamondon, 2000)

and proactivity (Crant, 2000; Frese, Kring, Soose, & Zempel, 1996; Parker,Williams, & Turner, 2006). The ability to

adapt to, and initiate, changes in work has become increasingly important as organizations have come to rely on

flexible work roles (Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991; Murphy & Jackson, 1999).

There has been considerable interest in identifying the personality traits that may predict individual differences

in adaptivity and proactivity at work (LePine, Colquitt, & Erez, 2000; Parker & Collins, 2010; Parker et al., 2006;

Pulakos, Schmitt, Dorsey, Arad, Hedge, & Borman, 2002). However, progress has been limited by a number of

*Correspondence to: Andrew Neal, School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, QLD 4072, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Received 10 September 2009

Revised 22 November 2010, Accepted 30 November 2010

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav.

Published online 26 January 2011 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.742

33, 175-192 (2012)

factors. First, there has been a tendency to focus on these constructs in isolation, so it is not clear whether the effects

of personality traits are specific to that performance construct, or generalize across the performance domain. Second,

adaptivity and proactivity overlap with existing constructs, such as task performance and citizenship performance

(Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007). As Rotundo and ASackett (2002) noted, there has been a proliferation of partially

overlapping constructs within the performance literature. The development of the Big Five model of personality

traits (Goldberg, 1990) has provided a commonly accepted taxonomy for classifying personality scales. The absence

of an equivalent taxonomy for classifying performance constructs has been repeatedly identified as a barrier to

progress towards a better understanding of the relationship between personality and performance (Barrick, Mount,

& Judge, 2001; Campbell, 1990; Guion & Gottier, 1965; Hogan & Holland, 2003).

Griffin et al. (2007) recently developed an integrative taxonomy of performance constructs. Using role theory

(Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991), they developed a nine-factor model that integrates adaptivity and proactivity with

existing performance constructs, such as task and citizenship performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Smith,

Organ, & Near, 1983). The goal of this paper is to develop and test a model describing the relationship between

personality traits and the nine factor model of work role performance. We integrate role theory with trait activation

theory to consider how the direction and form of work role performance can be predicted from the Big Five.

Work Role Performance

The term ‘‘work role’’ refers to the performance responsibilities an individual has at work (Murphy & Jackson,

1999). Griffin et al. (2007) proposed nine dimensions of work role performance by cross-classifying three forms

of behavior (proficiency, adaptivity, and proactivity) with three levels at which behaviors can contribute to

effectiveness (individual, team, and organizational). The authors argued that different forms of role behavior are

required in different situations. ‘‘Proficiency’’ describes the extent to which an individual meets the formal

requirements of his or her role. ‘‘Adaptivity’’ describes the extent to which an individual adapts to changes in work

systems or roles, and ‘‘proactivity’’ describes the extent towhich an individual takes self-directed action to anticipate

or initiate change in work systems or roles. Adaptivity and proactivity are important forms of behavior when there

is uncertainty in inputs, processes or outputs, because it is difficult to formalize the requirements of work roles

under these circumstances. Most occupations require a mixture of proficiency, adaptivity, and proactivity.

Griffin et al. (2007) argued that each form of role behavior has the potential to contribute to effectiveness

at different levels within the organization. We refer to the level at which behavior contributes to effectiveness as

the ‘‘direction’’ of work role performance. Individual task proficiency involves meeting the requirements of one’s

role as an individual employee, while team and organizational proficiency involve meeting the requirements of one’s

role as a member of a team or organization. Team requirements could include helping other team members or

coordinating their activities (LePine, Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu, & Saul, 2008). Organizational requirements could

include participating in committees or speaking favorably about the organization to stakeholders (Podsakoff,

MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). Individual task adaptivity involves adapting to changes that affect one’s role

as an individual, whereas team and organizational adaptivity involve adapting to changes that affect one’s role as

a member of a team or organization. Individual task proactivity involves initiating changes within one’s role,

whereas team and organizational proactivity involve initiating changes in the team or organization.

The taxonomy of work role performance developed by Griffin et al. (2007) builds on existing performance

frameworks, most notably the distinction between task and citizenship performance developed by Borman and

Motowidlo (1993) and refined by Borman, Penner, Allen andMotowidlo (2001). Task performance is defined as ‘‘the

proficiency with which job incumbents perform activities that are formally recognized as part of their jobs . . ., andcontribute to the organization’s technical core’’ (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993, p. 73). The concept of task

performance, therefore, directly corresponds to the concept of individual task proficiency in the Griffin et al.

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/job

J. Organiz. Behav. 33, 175-192 (2012)

176 ET AL. A. NEAL

taxonomy. Citizenship performance is defined as activities that ‘‘support the organizational, social, and psychologic

environment in which the technical core must function’’ (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993, p. 73). Borman et al. (2001)

identified three components of citizenship performance: personal support, organizational support, and conscientious

initiative. The concepts of personal support and organizational support correspond to the concepts of team

proficiency and organizational proficiency. The concept of conscientious initiative incorporates elements of

individual task proactivity (e.g., demonstrating initiative), but also involves compliance with expectations regarding

one’s individual work role (e.g., working hard). The Griffin et al. taxonomy removes this confound by differentiating

proficiency from proactivity, thereby addressing one of the major criticisms of the organizational citizenship

literature, namely that it emphasizes passive rather than proactive behavior (Parker, 1998). Griffin et al. go further by

introducing adaptivity, which has proven to be difficult to integrate within the task-citizenship framework because it

does not fit into a mutually exclusive category (Schmitt, Cortina, Ingenck, & Wickman, 2003). It is the matrix

structure that allows this integration, as it recognizes that task and citizenship behaviors can be carried out by varying

degrees of proficiency, adaptivity, and proactivity.

Predicting Work Role Performance from Personality

In this section, we integrate trait-activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003) with role theory (Ilgen & Hollenbeck,

1991; Katz & Kahn, 1978) to derive hypotheses regarding relationships among the Big Five personality traits and

the nine dimensions of work role performance. According to trait activation theory, personality traits represent

a propensity to behave in an identifiable way, and are expressed in response to cues in the work environment.

According to role theory (Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991), role senders (e.g., managers, supervisors, customers, and

coworkers) provide these cues in the form of expectations regarding behavior. Tett and Burnett (2003) identify three

sources of cues that correspond to the directions of work-role behavior in Griffin et al’s (2007) taxonomy: the

individual’s task; the team; and the organization. Trait activation theory suggests that personality traits influence

the way that role incumbents respond to these cues. For example, an individual with high conscientiousness

may respond to the expectations associated with their individual work role by working hard and persisting in the face

of adversity, whereas someone with low conscientiousness may give up easily. An individual with high levels of

agreeableness may respond to the expectations associated with their role as a member of a team by helping their

colleagues, whereas someone with low levels of agreeableness may be more likely to withhold assistance.

We extend this account by arguing that expectations regarding the form of behavior that is required in a work role

should also cue the expression of personality traits. For example, an individual with high openness to experience may

respond to expectations regarding adaptivity by willingly following new procedures and to expectations regarding

proactivity by developing improved work methods; whereas someone with low openness to experience may resist

change or maintain the status quo by continuing with traditional methods of working.

If a personality trait influences the way that employees respond to role senders’ expectations regarding

the direction and form of behavior that is required in a given work role, then we should observe a correlation between

that particular trait and supervisors’ ratings of performance in that particular work role. In the sections below, we

develop a series of hypotheses regarding the links between personality traits and specific dimensions of work

role performance (see Figure 1). We start with openness, agreeableness, and extraversion. Meta-analyses have

demonstrated that these three traits have the lowest true score correlation with overall job performance (Barrick

& Mount, 1991; Barrick et al., 2001). Barrick et al. (2001) noted, however, that the absence of an adequate

performance taxonomy may have obscured meaningful relationships involving these traits. We conclude with the

two traits that have consistently been found to predict overall job performance, namely conscientiousness

and neuroticism.


DOI: 10.1002/job

J. Organiz. Behav. 33, 175-192 (2012)

177PREDICTING WORK ROLE PERFORMANCE

Openness to experience

Openness to experience is a propensity to be imaginative, broad-minded, and curious (Barrick & Mount, 1991).

Tett and Burnett (2003) argued that this trait is likely to be expressed when there is an opportunity for an individual

to be creative and contribute to a culture of innovation, or is expected to learn new ways of doing things and accept

others’ ideas. This argument is consistent with the belief that openness should influence how employees respond under

conditions of uncertainty (Griffin & Hesketh, 2004; Thoresen, Bradley, Bliese, & Thoresen, 2004), because such

conditions are characterized by changes in systems, processes, or structures. It follows that openness should predict

adaptivity and proactivity because these forms of behavior are important when there is uncertainty in inputs, processes,

or outputs (Griffin et al., 2007). The response of an individual to expectations regarding these forms of behavior should

vary according to their level of openness. For example, a propensity to be broad-minded may predispose employees to

adapt to changes in their work roles, while creativity and intellectual curiosity may predispose employees to initiate

change. These behaviors should positively influence supervisors’ evaluations of the extent to which the individual fulfils

the requirements of their role, which should be reflected in supervisors’ ratings of adaptivity and proactivity.

Researchers have started to examine the relationship between openness and adaptivity, however, the results

from this body of literature are not yet conclusive. Three studies have reported significant positive correlations

between openness and adaptivity. Thoresen et al. (2004) found that openness predicted sales performance for

employees who carried out non-routine sales tasks, but not for employees who carried out routine sales tasks. Judge,

Thoresen, Pucik, and Welbourne (1999) found that openness predicted coping with change in a managerial sample.

In a laboratory study, LePine et al. (2000) found that openness predicted adaptability to changing task demands.

Furthermore, meta-analytic results show that openness predicts training success, which is an indicator of adaptivity

(Barrick & Mount, 1991). On the other hand, two studies have reported positive, but non-significant, correlations

between openness and adaptivity (Allworth & Hesketh, 1999; Pulakos et al., 2002). The balance of evidence across

theory and existing studies suggests the following hypothesis:

Figure 1. Hypothesized model


DOI: 10.1002/job

J. Organiz. Behav. 33, 175-192 (2012)

178 ET AL. A. NEAL

Hypothesis 1: Openness to experience positively predicts adaptivity and proactivity.

Agreeableness

Agreeableness is a propensity to be cooperative, courteous, and tolerant (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Tett and Burnett

(2003) argued that this trait is likely to be expressed when an individual works in a team and has to rely on others, or

has the opportunity to carry out citizenship activities that benefit the organization as a whole. That is, agreeableness

should influence the way that people interpret and respond to the actions of others. Individuals with high levels of

agreeableness should respond to these cues by cooperating with coworkers, helping other members of the

organization, and adapting to changes in the social context.

In terms of the direction of work role performance, the preceding arguments suggest that agreeableness should

predict behaviors that contribute to team or organizational effectiveness. With regard to the form of work role

performance, there are grounds for believing that agreeableness may inhibit proactivity. Tett and Burnett (2003)

argued that people with high levels of agreeableness are likely to conform to group norms. LePine and Van Dyne

(2001) argued that individuals with high agreeableness are unlikely to engage in proactive behavior, because they

prefer to conform with established ways of doing things and support the status quo. If so, then agreeableness should

exert opposing effects on the form and direction of work roles. These arguments suggest the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Agreeableness positively predicts team proficiency, team adaptivity, organizational proficiency,

and organizational adaptivity; but negatively predicts individual proactivity.

Extraversion

Extraversion is a propensity to be sociable, gregarious, and assertive (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Tett and Burnett (2003)

argued that this trait is likely to be cued when there is a requirement to interact with other people and work in a team.

Individuals with high levels of extraversion should respond by building effective interpersonal relations with people at

work, and generating energy and cohesion. These arguments suggest that extraversion should predict behaviors that

contribute to team effectiveness. However, results have been inconsistent. Borman et al. (2001) reviewed the results from

seven studies examining the link between extraversion and citizenship performance, and concluded that there was no

consistent relationship, possibly because of differences in jobs across the studies. For example, Neuman and Kickul

(1998) found that extraversion was negatively related to citizenship performance in a sample of jewelry sales clerks,

whereasMcManus and Kelly (1999) found a positive relationship in a sample of insurance representatives. Borman et al.

suggested that in highly structured jobs, extraversion may detract from citizenship. On the other hand, they concluded

that, across the 48 studies included in the meta-analyses they reviewed, extraversion positively predicted teamwork. On

balance, the bulk of theoretical and empirical evidence suggests the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Extraversion positively predicts team proficiency, team adaptivity, and team proactivity.

Conscientiousness

Conscientiousness reflects a propensity to be dependable and to strive for achievement (Barrick & Mount, 1991).

Tett and Burnett (2003) argued that all jobs provide cues for the expression of dependability and achievement, but

that there may be variability in the way this trait predicts performance. We believe that conscientiousness should

be a stronger predictor of individual task proficiency than the remaining eight dimensions of work role performance.

Turning first to the form of work role performance, Tett and Burnett (2003) argued that expectations for

detailed, precise work, and for compliance with rules, deadlines and quality standards, cue the expression of


DOI: 10.1002/job

J. Organiz. Behav. 33, 175-192 (2012)


conscientiousness. These arguments suggest that conscientiousness should be a stronger predictor of proficiency

than of adaptivity and proactivity because the cues that Tett and Burnett identified relate to the expectations of

role senders regarding behavior and performance standards (Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991; Katz & Kahn, 1978),

that is, task proficiency. Employees who are dependable and achievement oriented should be more likely to

expend the effort required to meet and exceed expectations than their counterparts. These efforts should positively

influence supervisors’ evaluations of the extent to which the individual fulfils the requirements of their role,

which should be reflected most strongly in supervisors’ ratings of task proficiency.

Turning next to the direction of work role performance, we believe conscientiousness should be a stronger

predictor of individual task proficiency than team or organizational proficiency. Tett and Burnett (2003) identified

a range of factors at the team and organizational level that may cue conscientiousness. At the team level, these include

expectations for team members to be responsible and dependable, and for precise and explicit communication.

At the organizational level, they include expectations for success and loyalty. However, Griffin et al. (2007) argued that

the requirements for team and organization member roles are generally articulated less clearly than the requirements for

individual work roles. If so, the tasks that employees perform in their role as an individual should be predicted more

strongly by conscientiousness than the tasks they perform in their role as a member of a team or organization.

These arguments may appear to contradict the view that conscientiousness is a stronger predictor of citizenship

performance than task performance (Borman et al., 2001) or that it is an equal predictor of both performance criteria

(Hurtz & Donovan, 2000). However, many studies that have examined the relationship between conscientiousness

and citizenship performance have used measures of citizenship that incorporate dedication or compliance (Hattrup,

O’Connell, & Wingate, 1998; McHenry, Hough, Toquam, Hanson, & Ashworth, 1990; Motowidlo & Van Scotter,

1994), which may explain why conscientiousness has predicted these measures. In combination, these arguments

suggest the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: Conscientiousness positively predicts all nine dimensions of work role performance; however, it is

a stronger predictor of individual task proficiency than the remaining eight dimensions.

Neuroticism

Neuroticism is characterized by a predisposition toward negative cognitions, intrusive thoughts, and emotional

reactivity (Smillie, Yeo, Furnham, & Jackson, 2006). This trait is thought to reflect a generalized way of responding

across situations because it is a predisposition to interpret personally relevant stimuli as a potential threat, and to

react emotionally (Burke, Brief, & George, 1993; Watson & Clark, 1984). Therefore, we argue that all nine work

roles should cue the expression of neuroticism. If an individual is high in neuroticism, the processes of trying to meet

the requirements of one’s role, adapting to change, or initiating change each could cue negative cognitions and

emotions, which should be detrimental to performance. Similarly, working on one’s own tasks, or carrying out

one’s role as a member of a team or organization could cue negative cognitions and emotions. Consistent with these

claims, Tett and Burnett (2003) identified a range of factors that may cue the expression of neuroticism, including

high levels of responsibility, lack of control, high levels of risk, interpersonal conflict, organizational restructuring,

uncertainty, and external threats (e.g., sliding profits). These arguments suggest the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5: Neuroticism negatively predicts all nine dimensions of work role performance.

In summary, we expect that (a) openness to experience will positively predict adaptivity and proactivity at all

levels, (b) agreeableness will positively predict proficiency and adaptivity at the team and organizational levels

but negatively predict individual proactivity, (c) extraversion will positively predict team performance, (d)

conscientiousness will positively predict all performance dimensions with the strongest link being to individual

proficiency, and (e) neuroticism will negatively predict all performance dimensions.


DOI: 10.1002/job

J. Organiz. Behav. 33, 175-192 (2012)

180 ET AL. A. NEAL

Methods

Participants

Australian government staff and their supervisors participated in this research. Twenty-seven thousand six hundred

and forty-one surveys were distributed to staff. Six thousand one hundred and twenty-eight staff members completed

the survey, which represents a response rate of 22.17 per cent.1 We received 1447 supervisor surveys,

which represents a response rate of 23.61 per cent, however, 72 of these staff-supervisor pairs could not be used due

to non-unique identifier codes or blank staff and/or supervisor surveys, yielding a final sample size of 1375. These

1375 staff-supervisor pairs represented 1139 unique supervisors – the majority of which (84.4 per cent) rated only

one staff member. 12.2 per cent of the supervisors rated two staff members and the remaining 3.4 per cent rated

between three and seven staff members.

The 1375 staff members with matched supervisor data were used to test the hypotheses. This group did not differ

significantly from the remaining 4753 staff members on personality or demographic variables. Most staff members

were female (79.5 per cent) and 20.4 per cent were male (0.1 per cent unspecified). The mean age of participants was

39.05 years (SD¼ 10.49 years) and the average participant had been working in his or her current role for 47.50

months (SD¼ 54.24 months). Administrative staff (e.g., receptionists, project officers) comprised 86.8 per cent

of the sample and operational staff (e.g., technicians and gardeners) comprised 10 per cent of the sample (3.2 per cent

unspecified). The highest level of education for the majority of participants was high school level (23.6 per cent

to year 10; and 23.4 per cent to year 12).

Procedure

Electronic surveyStaff members with web access were sent an electronic version of the survey. Directors-General sent two broadcast

emails notifying staff members of the upcoming study. The research team sent personalized emails to staff with a

URL link to the staff survey. Staff members were given 3 weeks to complete the survey. Three reminder emails were

sent (2 weeks, 1 week, and 1 day before the deadline). On completion of the electronic survey, staff members were

asked to send their supervisor an email requesting him or her to complete an electronic survey regarding the staff

member’s work behavior. Staff were asked to enter their own name, supervisor’s name and supervisor’s email

address. A personalized email was sent to supervisors with a URL link to the supervisor survey. The staff member’s

identification code was automatically recorded with the supervisor’s responses for matching purposes.

Paper–pencil survey

Staff members without web access were sent a paper–pencil version of the staff and supervisor surveys. A cover

letter asked staff members to give the supervisor survey to their supervisor. Staff were asked to write their own name

and own identification code on the supervisor’s survey and hand-deliver the supervisor survey and a reply paid

envelope to the supervisor. Supervisors were asked to tear off the section with the staff member’s name (and give

it back to the staff member) prior to posting the survey back to the research team.

As an incentive, all staff members who completed an electronic or paper–pencil survey were given the opportunity

to enter a draw to win one of fifty double movie passes.

1Note that the total staff response rate was 28.28 per cent when one agency with a response rate of less than 10 per cent was excluded. For thisagency, a survey package was sent to a contact person and he or she was required to photocopy and distribute the appropriate numbers of surveys.We cannot be certain that all 7444 of this agency’s eligible staff received a survey.


DOI: 10.1002/job

J. Organiz. Behav. 33, 175-192 (2012)


Measures

Control variables

We controlled for gender, age, education level, and tenure (number of months in current role) based on past research

indicating that these variables can influence supervisor ratings of performance (Ferris, Yates, Gilmore, & Rowland,

1985; Furnham & Stringfield, 2001; Liden, Stilwell, & Ferris, 1996).

Personality

Goldberg’s International Personality Item Pool (IPIP; Goldberg, 1999) was included in the staff survey. This measure

is based on the five-factor model of personality and has been demonstrated to have sound reliability (coefficient

alphas range from 0.79 to 0.87) and convergent and discriminant validity with other personality scales such as the

NEO-FFI (Goldberg, 1999; Lim& Ployhart, 2006). Each scale is designed to measure the full factor (rather than sub-

facets) with ten items. Examples include: ‘‘I feel comfortable around people’’ (extraversion); ‘‘I have a soft heart’’

(agreeableness); ‘‘I pay attention to details’’ (conscientiousness); ‘‘I worry about things,’’ (neuroticism) and ‘‘I have

a vivid imagination’’ (openness to experience). Participants responded on a scale ranging from 1 (very inaccurate) to

5 (very accurate). Alpha reliabilities ranged from 0.66 to 0.87 (see Table 1).

Performance

Supervisor ratings of the nine performance dimensions were measured with Griffin et al’s (2007) work role

performance measure. Results from three samples provided support for the nine-factor structure and individuals’

abilities to distinguish among the dimensions; and reliabilities were sound (ranging from 0.67 to 0.92; Griffin et al.,

2007). Each dimension is measured with three items except team proficiency which is measured by five items.

Examples include: ‘‘ensured tasks were completed properly’’ (individual task proficiency), ‘‘responded

constructively to changes in the way his/her team works’’ (team adaptivity) and ‘‘came up with ways of increasing

efficiency within the organization’’ (organizational proactivity). Supervisors rated the frequency that the given

staff member demonstrated each indicator of performance over the past month on a scale ranging from 1 (very little)

to 5 (a great deal). Alpha reliabilities ranged from 0.91 to 0.96 (see Table 1).

Results

Descriptive statistics, zero order correlations, and reliability estimates are presented in Table 1. Our data are nested

because some supervisors rated more than one staff member. Given that ratings by the same supervisor are likely

to be more similar than those made by different raters, we used multilevel modeling (HLM; Raudenbush & Bryk,

2002) to control for the hierarchical data structure (Lahuis & Avis, 2007). This technique specifies individuals at

the lowest level of analysis (Level 1) who are nested within supervisors at a higher level of analysis (Level 2).2Where

relevant, we tested the significance of the difference between two or more coefficient estimates. In each case

we first assessed the overlap between the relevant confidence intervals. Non-overlap between pairs of confidence

intervals indicates that the two parameters are statistically significant, yet overlap does not necessarily indicate

statistical non-significance (Goldstein & Healy, 1995; Payton, Greenstone, & Schenker, 2003; Schenker &

2Note, however, that although the multilevel structure controls for the nested data structure, the Level 2 variability is likely to be inflated due to thedisproportionate number of supervisors who only rated 1 staff member (84.4 per cent). That is, some of the variability that exists across thosesupervisors may simply be due to variability across staff members. For this reason, we do not report intra-class correlation coefficients (theproportion of variability in the dependent variables that exists at the group level and the proportion of that variance component that is systematicrather than error) or effect sizes related to Level 2 variance. However, this is not a problem for the interpretation of our results because ourhypotheses do not concern any Level 2 predictors.


DOI: 10.1002/job

J. Organiz. Behav. 33, 175-192 (2012)

182 ET AL. A. NEAL

Gentleman, 2001; Tryon, 2001). In the case of overlap between the relevant confidence intervals, we conducted a

structural equation model of the five personality dimensions predicting all nine performance subdimensions and

followed Griffin et al’s (2007) equality constraints approach to assess the difference between coefficient estimates

via alternative constrained models.

First, we ran a separate model for each of the nine performance dimensions, which included the four control

variables as fixed effects. As shown in Table 2, the control variables explained between 6.18 per cent and 11.86 per

cent of the Level 1 variance in performance dimensions.

Next, we introduced the five personality dimensions as fixed effects. These results are shown in Table 3.

Hypothesis 1 predicts that openness to experience positively relates to adaptivity and proactivity. Openness to

experience did not predict adaptivity at any level, however it was positively related to proactivity at the individual

(b¼ 0.14, t(1258)¼ 2.13, p< .05) and organizational (b¼ 0.13, t(1251)¼ 2.01, p< .05) levels. Unexpectedly, this

personality trait was also negatively related to team (b¼�0.11, t(1255)¼�2.10, p< .05) and organizational

(b¼�0.12, t(1251)¼�2.12, p< .05) proficiency. The confidence intervals for these two sets of effects did not

overlap suggesting that the positive links between openness and proactivity were significantly different from the

negative links between openness and proficiency.

Hypothesis 2 predicts that agreeableness positively relates to proficiency and adaptivity at the team and

organizational levels; and negatively relates to individual task proactivity. As expected, agreeableness was

negatively related to individual task proactivity (b¼�0.13, t(1258)¼�2.26, p< .05). However, agreeableness was

not related to proficiency or adaptivity at any level.

Tests of Hypotheses 1 and 2 revealed that openness to experience was negatively related to individual proactivity

whereas agreeableness was positively related to this performance dimension. The confidence intervals for these two

coefficients did not overlap suggesting that the effects were significantly different from each other.

Hypothesis 3 predicts that extraversion positively relates to team proficiency, adaptivity, and proactivity. Contrary

to this hypothesis, extraversion was unrelated to team proficiency, adaptivity, and proactivity. Unexpectedly,

extraversion was negatively related individual task proficiency (b¼�0.08, t(1258)¼�2.61, p< .01).

Hypothesis 4 predicts that conscientiousness positively relates to all dimensions of work role performance, but

that it is a stronger predictor of individual task proficiency than the other eight dimensions. Consistent with

Hypothesis 4, conscientiousness was positively related to all dimensions of work role performance and the

coefficient estimate for the link between conscientiousness and individual proficiency was larger than any other

coefficient (b¼ 0.21, t(1258)¼ 5.18, p< .001). As can be seen from Table 3, the confidence intervals for these

effects overlapped. For this reason, we used structural equation modeling to test whether the effects were distinct. We

used equality constraints to assess two alternative constrained models in which the path from conscientiousness to

individual task proficiency was set equal to paths between conscientiousness and other subdimensions.3 First, we

tested whether the path from conscientiousness to individual task proficiency was equal to the conscientiousness

paths involving individual proactivity and individual adaptivity. This constraint resulted in a significant decrease in

model fit (Dx2 [2,n¼ 1225]¼ 11.82, p< .01). Second, we tested whether the path from conscientiousness to

individual task proficiency was equal to the conscientiousness paths involving team proficiency and organizational

proficiency. This constraint also resulted in a significant decrease in model fit (Dx2 [2,n¼ 1225]¼ 10.40, p< .01).

Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was supported.

Hypothesis 5 predicts that neuroticism negatively relates to all dimensions of work role performance. This

hypothesis was supported. It is worth noting that the coefficient for neuroticism! individual task proficiency

(�0.07) is smaller than all other neuroticism coefficients (which range from �0.12 to �0.19). Inspection of the

relative confidence intervals indicated that although its lower confidence interval estimate did not overlap with any of

the other neuroticism estimates, the upper estimate did overlap with the eight other performance dimensions.

Therefore, we used structural equation modeling with equality constraints to assess two alternative constrained

models in which the path from neuroticism to individual task proficiency was set equal to paths between neuroticism

3Full details of the SEM analysis can be obtained from the authors.


DOI: 10.1002/job

J. Organiz. Behav. 33, 175-192 (2012)


Table

1.Descriptivestatistics,zero-order

correlations,andreliabilityestimates

MSD

12

34

56

78

910

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1.Gender

0.8

0.4

—2.Age

39.05

10.49

�0.14

—3.Educationlevel

3.65

3.38

�0.08

�0.17

—4.Tenure

47.50

54.24

�0.08

0.36

0.15

—5.Openness

3.35

0.47

�0.14

�0.10

0.23

�0.07

0.66

6.Agreeableness

4.03

0.55

0.16

0.07

0.02

�0.04

0.26

0.83

7.Extraversion

3.09

0.73

�0.01

�0.10

0.11

�0.10

0.39

0.34

0.88

8.Conscientiousness

3.91

0.56

0.15

0.15

�0.02

0.06

0.19

0.39

0.08

0.81

9.Neuroticism

3.53

0.48

�0.04

0.13

0.03

�0.02

�0.12

�0.24

�0.24

�0.26

0.87

10.Indproficiency

4.26

0.73

0.14

0.02

�0.04

0.04

�0.07

0.03

�0.09

0.18

�0.07

0.93

11.Team

proficiency

40.83

0.13

0.01

�0.01

�0.00

�0.07

0.08

�0.02

0.12

�0.12

0.70

0.92

12.Org

proficiency

3.85

0.88

0.14

0.02

�0.01

�0.01

�0.06

0.09

�0.01

0.13

�0.14

0.58

0.71

0.91

13.Indproactivity

3.75

0.99

0.07

�0.03

0.05

0.02

0.06

0.00

�0.02

0.12

�0.08

0.64

0.65

0.56

0.94

14.Team

proactivity

3.69

0.99

0.08

�0.02

0.06

0.01

0.04

0.02

�0.02

0.13

�0.08

0.63

0.73

0.60

0.88

0.96

15.Org

proactivity

3.56

1.02

0.08

�0.01

0.05

�0.00

0.05

0.01

�0.01

0.11

� 0.08

0.58

0.67

0.66

0.79

0.84

0.94

16.Indadaptivity

4.07

0.82

0.10

�0.12

0.04

�0.07

0.03

0.05

0.02

0.09

�0.12

0.75

0.69

0.59

0.69

0.68

0.64

0.93

17.Team

adaptivity

3.96

0.86

0.11

�0.05

0.04

�0.05

0.00

0.06

0.01

0.12

�0.15

0.68

0.82

0.68

0.70

0.75

0.70

0.82

0.93

18.Org

adaptivity

3.88

0.86

0.10

�0.04

0.05

�0.00

�0.01

0.05

�0.01

0.14

�0.14

0.63

0.74

0.78

0.64

0.68

0.71

0.76

0.84

0.95

Ind,individual;Org,organizational.

Note:Diagonal

entriesarescalereliabilities.

r>0.05sigat

p<.05.r>0.07sigat

p<.01.r>0.09sigat

p<.001.


DOI: 10.1002/job

J. Organiz. Behav. 33, 175-192 (2012)

184 ET AL. A. NEAL

and other subdimensions. First, we tested whether the path from neuroticism to individual task proficiency was

equal to the neuroticism paths involving individual proactivity and individual adaptivity.4 This constraint resulted

in a significant decrease in model fit (Dx2 [2,n¼ 1225]¼ 9.57, p< .01). Second, we tested whether the

path from neuroticism to individual task proficiency was equal to the neuroticism paths involving team proficiency

and organizational proficiency. This constraint also resulted in a significant decrease in model fit

(Dx2 [2,n¼ 1225]¼ 10.85, p< .01). These analyses suggest that the neuroticism! individual task proficiency

path was significantly weaker than the paths from neuroticism to other subdimensions.

Discussion

We observed a differential pattern of relationships among the Big 5 personality traits and the nine dimensions of

work role performance. In some cases the effects were different to what we hypothesized. We show how these

findings, in combination, can be interpreted within our integrated framework of trait activation and role theories

and simultaneously highlight potential extensions and boundary conditions.

Theoretical implications and extensions

Openness to experience had opposing effects on the form of work role performance. As expected, it was

positively related to proactivity, although only at the individual and organizational levels. These results suggest that

a propensity to be creative, broad minded, and curious expresses itself at work in the form of self-directed behaviors

designed to initiate change in one’s own work role or the broader organization. Unexpectedly, openness was

negatively related to team and organizational proficiency. These results suggest that openness may inhibit

cooperative behaviors at work that are expected by coworkers, supervisors, and managers. These findings can be

interpreted in relation to the concepts of ‘‘getting ahead’’ and ‘‘getting along’’ (Hogan & Holland, 2003). On

the one hand, openness appears to be useful in situations where the individual needs to initiate change, but on the

other hand, it may be a hindrance in situations where the individual needs to comply with the expectations of others

concerning the way that they interact with their team and organization.

As expected, agreeableness was negatively related to individual proactivity. In contrast to openness, this finding

suggests that a propensity to be cooperative, trusting, and compassionate appears to inhibit behaviors that challenge

Table 2. Control variable! performance coefficient estimates

Proficiency Proactivity Adaptivity

Ind Team Org Ind Team Org Ind Team Org

Gender .26�� .28�� .30�� .21�� .23�� .23�� .18�� .22�� .21��

Age .00 .00 .00 �.00 �.00 .00 �.01� �.00 �.00Education level �.00 .00 .00 .02� .02� .02� .01 .01 .01Tenure .00 �.00 �.00 .00 .00 .00 �.00 �.00 �.00% Variance explaineda 6.18 11.00 11.31 6.30 9.93 11.86 8.89 10.88 10.34

aFigures represent the unique level 1 variance explained by the block of four control variables.�p< .05. ��p< .01. ��p< .001.

4Note that the neuroticism! individual proficiency path was not significant in the SEM analysis, whereas it was significant in the HLM analysis.Full details of these analyses are available from the authors.


DOI: 10.1002/job

J. Organiz. Behav. 33, 175-192 (2012)


Table

3.Personality!

perform

ance

coefficientestimates

andconfidence

intervals

Proficiency

Proactivity

Adaptivity

Ind

Team

Org

Ind

Team

Org

Ind

Team

Org

Openness

�0.07

(�0.162,

0.027)

�.11�

(�0.219,

�0.007)

�.12�

(�0.230,

�0.009)

.14�

(0.011,

0.272)

0.1

(�0.028,

0.225)

.13�

(0.003,

0.265)

0.02

(�0.104,

0.087)

�0.014

(�0.125,

0.097)

�0.03

(�0.139,

0.074)

Agreeableness

�0.04

(�0.123,

0.051)

0.04

(�0.058,

0.141)

0.05

(�0.054,

0.152)

�.13�

(�0.254,

�0.018)

�0.08

(�0.195,

0.043)

�0.11

(�0.227,

0.012)

�0.01

(�0.104,

0.087)

�0.03

(�0.132,

0.076)

�0.04

(�0.146,

0.056)

Extraversion

�.08��

(�0.143,

�0.020)

�0.03

(�0.103,

0.044)

�0.02

(�0.098,

0.054)

�0.07

(�0.148,

0.018)

�0.07

(�0.153,

0.012)

�0.05

(�0.130,

0.041)

�0.04

(�0.106,

0.030)

�0.04

(�0.110,

0.038)

�0.04

(�0.116,

0.031)

Conscientiousness

.21��

�

(0.129,

0.285)

.10�

(0.008,

0.181)

.11�

(0.018,

0.197)

.19��

(0.076,

0.299)

.18��

(0.069,

0.290)

.17��

(0.030,

0.246)

.10�

(0.014,

0.181)

.13��

(0.034,

0.215)

.15��

(0.061,

0.246)

Neuroticism

�.07�

(�0.005,

�0.133)

�.12��

(�0.053,

�0.194)

�.16��

�

(�0.089,

�0.238)

�.13��

(�0.043,

�0.208)

�.12��

(�0.040,

�0.209)

�.13��

(�0.042,

�0.214)

�.16��

�

(�0.093,

�0.234)

�.19��

�

(�0.112,

�0.258)

�.17��

�

(�0.099,

�0.247)

%Variance

explained

a3.35

1.35

2.79

1.87

0.78

1.51

3.12

3.33

2.32

Note:Thesecoefficientestim

ates

arebased

onmodelsthatincluded

thefourcontrolvariables.Numbersintheupperrowsarecoefficientestim

ates

(unstandardized

regressionweights).

Numbersin

thelower

rowsarelower

andupper

confidence

interval

estimates,respectively.

� Figuresrepresenttheuniquelevel

1variance

explained

bytheblock

offivepersonalityvariablesbeyondthefourcontrolvariables.

��p<.05.�� p

<.01.p<.001.


DOI: 10.1002/job

J. Organiz. Behav. 33, 175-192 (2012)

186 ET AL. A. NEAL

existing role definitions. This finding is consistent with arguments emphasizing the passive nature of agreeableness

(LePine & Van Dyne, 2001). Contrary to expectations, we did not find evidence to suggest that agreeableness

is associated with higher levels of team or organizational proficiency and adaptivity.

Extraversion was not related to work role performance in the manner we expected. We expected that extraversion

would predict behaviors that contribute to team effectiveness at each level. These three effects were not significant.

It is possible that the highly structured nature of work performed by administrative employees inhibits the expression

of extraversion in social contexts (Borman et al., 2001). Further, extraversion was negatively related to individual

task proficiency. When extraversion is expressed in administrative settings, it may be viewed negatively by

supervisors, producing poorer evaluations of individual task proficiency. For example, government agencies are

generally characterized by a hierarchical power structure. The expression of extraversion may be viewed negatively

if it is interpreted as a desire to ‘‘get ahead’’ such as by being promoted ‘‘before their time.’’

As expected, conscientiousness and neuroticism predicted all dimensions of work role performance. This finding

is consistent with Barrick et al’s (2001) conclusion that the effects of these two traits generalize across criteria.

However, the effect of conscientiousness was the strongest for individual task proficiency. We predicted this result,

because conscientiousness reflects a tendency to be dependable and achieve goals. In work settings, this propensity

should be expressed as behavior that meets the expectations of supervisors, managers, coworkers, and customers.

These expectations tend to be most clearly articulated for one’s role as an individual within the organization. Indeed,

Griffin et al. (2007) found that role clarity was a stronger predictor of individual task proficiency than the other

performance dimensions. The fact that previous research examining the link between conscientiousness and

performance suggests that it is a stronger predictor of citizenship than task performance (Borman et al., 2001) or

an equal predictor of both (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000) underscores the importance of disentangling the form and

direction of work role performance when generating and testing predictions.

It is interesting that the parameter estimate for neuroticism was the weakest for individual task proficiency. Tett

and Burnett (2003) argued that role clarity, together with task consistency and predictability, may inhibit the

expression of neuroticism. Individual task proficiency is the dimension of work role performancewhere the effects of

these variables are most likely to be observed.

These findings contribute to the ongoing development of role theory (Griffin et al., 2007; Ilgen & Hollenbeck,

1991; Murphy & Jackson, 1999), and the search for traits that predict differences in performance (Tett & Burnett,

2003). First, whilst we found evidence that openness, agreeableness, and extraversion predicted specific types of

proficiency or proactivity, none of these traits predicted adaptivity. Conscientiousness and neuroticism were the only

factors that predicted adaptivity, suggesting that the personality predictors of adaptivity are indistinguishable

from those of general work performance (Barrick et al., 2001). This is consistent with previous studies, which have

had limited success in predicting adaptivity from personality traits (Van Iddekinge & Ployhart, 2008). One

explanation could be that supervisors are not good at rating adaptivity, because it is harder to observe than other

forms of behavior. However, Griffin et al. (2007) found that attitudes to organizational change uniquely predicted

adaptivity, suggesting that more proximal variables are predictive. This is consistent with findings from the selection

literature that highlight experience as a predictor of adaptivity (Allworth & Hesketh, 1999) and from the training

literature that identify factors such as knowledge and motivational constructs (self-evaluation activity, intrinsic

motivation, and self-efficacy) as the strongest predictors of adaptive transfer (e.g., Bell & Kozlowski, 2008).

Therefore, we suspect that broad personality traits are not good predictors of adaptivity, and that the search for

predictors of this work role dimension should focus on constructs such as attitudes, experience, and motivation.

Second, the results provide insight into the way that roles may evolve. Role theory suggests that roles develop

dynamically, as individuals respond to the expectations of role senders in different work situations, and as role

senders adjust those expectations in response. Roles are expected to develop in different ways for different people.

Our results suggest that personality trait profiles may influence this process. For example, employees who are high

in openness to experience and conscientiousness, and low in agreeableness and neuroticism, may respond

proactively in situations where there is uncertainty regarding the processes and procedures that they should use for

performing their tasks, by taking the initiative and working out how to do it themselves. Supervisors may respond


DOI: 10.1002/job

J. Organiz. Behav. 33, 175-192 (2012)


by giving these employees more autonomy, and providing greater opportunity for showing proactivity. As such,

these employees may experience an upward spiral in proactive performance whereas employees with the opposing

personality profile may experience a downward spiral. Growth mixture modeling techniques (Muthen & Muthen,

2000) could be used to predict latent classes of such trajectories as a function of personality profiles.

Limitations and boundary conditions

We acknowledge that the effect sizes reported in this paper are relatively small. However, a number of them are

larger than that reported in previous meta-analyses (Barrick et al., 2001). For example, the uncorrected regression

weights for openness to experience in our study varied between 0.14 (individual proactivity) to �0.12

(organizational proficiency). After correcting for restriction of range and measurement error in the predictor and

criterion, Barrick et al. (2001) found that the weighted average of meta-analytically derived validity coefficients for

openness to experience as a predictor of supervisor ratings of job performance was only 0.05. After performing the

same corrections on our coefficients, the validity of openness to experience as a predictor of individual, team, and

organizational proactivity was 0.24, 0.17, and 0.22, respectively, while the validity of openness to experience as

a predictor of individual, team, and organizational proficiency was �0.12, �0.19, and �0.20, respectively. These

values (with the exception of team proactivity) fall outside of the limits of the credibility values reported by Barrick

et al. (2001; 90 per cent CV �0.11, 0.21). These findings demonstrate the value of distinguishing between different

work roles when examining personality-performance relationships.

Further, utility analysis suggests that validity coefficients of the magnitude reported here can yield financial

benefits. Take, for example, the uncorrected coefficient of 0.14 between openness to experience and individual

proactivity. If a government invested US$50 per applicant to include a test of openness to experience in their selection

system with an expected selection ratio of only 0.25 (due to the global financial crisis) for the annual recruitment of 100

administrative public servants whose average salary is US$50000,5 the estimated utility of this investment using the

Brogden–Cronbach–Glasermodel (Brogden, 1949; Cronbach&Glaser, 1965;Mabon, 1994) isUS$337280.A break-even

analysis (Mabon, 1994) using these parameters suggests that as long as the cost ofmeasuring openness to experience is less

than US$893 incorporating it into a selection systemwill enhance the utility of selection decisions. Given the large number

of people hired by federal and state governments around the world, the potential for payoffs is large.

The current study did not examine the situational factors that may moderate personality–performance relations,

and included a limited sample of jobs. Trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003) suggests that situational factors

cue the expression of personality traits at work, and as a result, the same trait may be expressed in different ways

in different contexts, or across different jobs. In terms of the magnitude of effects, for example, the expression of

agreeableness and extraversion may be most likely to be cued in jobs with a strong interpersonal focus such as

customer service officers or health professionals; and weak situations (e.g., jobs with high autonomy) may be more

likely to cue the expression of personality traits than strong situations (e.g., highly structured jobs; Tett & Burnett,

2003). There is also research suggesting that the direction of personality trait effects may differ across contexts.

For example, conscientiousness has been shown to relate negatively to creativity (similar to our conceptualization of

proactivity) for individuals who work under close supervisory monitoring and also have unsupportive co-workers

(Feist, 1998; George & Zhou, 2001; Walker, Koestner, & Hum, 1995).

More generally, one might question whether relationships between personality traits and ratings of work role

performance are meaningful given that they both refer to behaviors. For example, an anonymous reviewer wondered

whether openness to experience and adaptivity are only statistically related due to overlap in behavioral concepts.

Personality traits and ratings of work role performance are distinct, even if they refer to the same type of behavior,

because the former describe behavioral preferences and tendencies, whereas the latter reflect judgments regarding

behaviors that people engage in at work (Tett & Burnett, 2003). The case of openness and adaptivity is a relatively

5All the estimates used to conduct this utility analysis were conservative. Please contact the authors for a detailed justification of these estimates.


DOI: 10.1002/job

J. Organiz. Behav. 33, 175-192 (2012)

188 ET AL. A. NEAL

clear example, because these constructs do not refer to the same behavior. Openness is defined as a propensity to be

imaginative, broad-minded, and curious, whereas adaptability is defined as the extent to which the individual adapts

to changes in work systems or roles.

The current study examined the predictive validity of the Big 5 at the construct level, rather than the facet level. It

is possible that one might obtain different results by examining specific facets within each personality trait, rather

than the trait as a whole. For example, Hogan and Holland (2003) have argued that openness can be split into

intellectance and school success and that extraversion can be split into ambition and sociability, each of which may

have different effects. Relationships among personality and performance can be examined at various levels of

bandwidth. Any combination has the potential to make a contribution to the literature, providing that the empirical

examination matches the research- or practice-oriented question. In this study, wewere interested in whether the nine

dimensions of work role performance are differentially predicted by personality dimensions.We believed that a focus on

the Big 5 personality traits rather than facets represented themost sensible ‘‘next step’’ for theory development because it

allowed (a) the development of a comprehensive set of hypotheses while maintaining parsimony and (b) a relatively

straightforward extension of trait activation theory (which focuses on the Big 5) to consideration of both the direction

and form of work role performance. This reasoning is also consistent with Barrick et al’s (2001) point that prior to

establishing a framework that links personality facets to criterion constructs, more work is required to develop a

commonly accepted taxonomy of lower-level personality measures. In the meantime, our framework is useful for

understanding the effects of personality traits on performance and simultaneously provides a platform for generating

hypotheses regarding personality facets in subsequent stages of theory development.

Contributions and Conclusion

We believe this research makes a substantive contribution to the personality and performance literatures. Despite

Campbell’s (1990) call nearly two decades ago, efforts to establish the structure of performance constructs have lagged

behind similar efforts relating to personality. Our results support the convergent and divergent validity of Griffin et al’s

(2007) new taxonomy of work-role performance. In parallel, our results demonstrate that recommendations to generate

theory-driven personality-performance predictions from the criterion end (Bartram, 2005; Campbell, 1990; Hogan &

Holland, 2003) are useful for understanding differential relationships among these two sets of constructs. Finally, our

results contribute to the bandwidth debate, by providing further evidence that meaningful relationships can be observed

by examining multiple personality and performance dimensions at a relatively broad level. By using a taxonomy of

performance that not only integrates a broad range of performance constructs, but also provides a principled way of

differentiating among those constructs, we hope that the current paper can make a contribution to the ongoing

accumulation of knowledge regarding the relationship between personality and performance.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a Linkage grant from the Australian Research Council (LP0209614).

Author biographies

Andrew Neal is an Associate Professor in the School of Psychology at The University of Queensland. His research

focuses on the motivational and cognitive determinants of performance, safety and effectiveness at work. His work is


DOI: 10.1002/job

J. Organiz. Behav. 33, 175-192 (2012)


multidisciplinary, drawing on theory from I/O Psychology, Organizational Behavior, Human Factors and Cognitive

Science.

Gillian Yeo is an Associate Professor in the Business School at the University of Western Australia. Her research

examines dynamic self-regulatory processes related to motivation, emotion, learning and performance. This research

is conducted in the laboratory using medium fidelity micro-worlds; and in diverse field contexts (e.g., tertiary

education, public service, natural resources sector). Her work demonstrates that within-person self-regulatory

processes change over time and are influenced by individual differences and situational characteristics.

Annette Koy is an Adjunct Lecturer in the School of Psychology at The University of Queensland. Her PhD focused

on understanding the general mechanisms underlying learning and adaptive decision making. More broadly, her

research examines the complex and dynamic relationships among traits, states and performance. Annette is currently

working with industry across the areas of organisational change, leadership, employee engagement and perform-

ance.

Tania Xiao is a PhD student in the School of Psychology at The University of Queensland. She is interested in

examining the dynamic structural determinants of coordination behaviour in complex sociotechnical systems. Her

current work involves field research in the healthcare domain and draws on theory from I/O Psychology, Cognitive

Systems Engineering and Human Factors.

References

Allworth, E., & Hesketh, B. (1999). Construct-oriented biodata: Capturing change-related and contextually relevant futureperformance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 7, 97–111.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. PersonnelPsychology, 44, 1–26.

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the newmillenium:What dowe know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9–30.

Bartram, D. (2005). The great eight competencies: A criterion-centric approach to validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,1185–1203.

Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2008). Active learning: Effects of core training design elements on self-regulatory processes,learning, and adaptability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 296–316.

Borman, W., & Motowidlo, S. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N.Schmitt, W. Borman, et al (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71–98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Borman, W., Penner, L., Allen, T., & Motowidlo, S. (2001). Personality predictors of citizenship performance. InternationalJournal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 52–69.

Brogden, H. (1949). When testing pays off. Personnel Psychology, 2, 171–185.Burke, M., Brief, A., & George, J. (1993). The role of negative affectivity in understanding relations between self-reports ofstressors and strains: A comment on the applied psychology literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 402–412.

Campbell, J. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D.Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd edition. Vol. 1, pp. 39–74). PaloAlto: CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Campbell, J., Dunnette, M., Lawler, E., & Weick, K. (1970). Managerial behavior, performance and effectiveness. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Campbell, J., McCloy, R., Oppler, S., & Sager, C. (1993). A theory of performance. In N. Schmitt, &W. Borman (Eds.), Personnelselection in organizations (pp. 35–70). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435–462.Cronbach, L., & Glaser, G. (1965). Psychological tests and personnel decisions (2nd edition.). Urbana, IL: University of IllinoisPress.

Feist, G. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4,290–309.

Ferris, G., Yates, V., Gilmore, D., & Rowland, K. (1985). The influence of subordinate age on performance ratings and causalattributions. Personnel Psychology, 38, 545–557.


DOI: 10.1002/job

J. Organiz. Behav. 33, 175-192 (2012)

190 ET AL. A. NEAL

Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. (1996). Personal initiative at work: Differences between East and West Germany.Academy of Managament Journal, 39, 37–63.

Furnham, A., & Stringfield, P. (2001). Gender differences in rating reports: Female managers are harsher rates, particularly ofmales. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16, 281–288.

George, J., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: Aninteractional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 513–524.

Goldberg, L. (1990). An alternative ‘‘description of personality’’: The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 59, 1216–1229.

Goldberg, L. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, F. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilberg, The Netherlands: Tilberg University Press.

Goldstein, H., & Healy, M. (1995). The graphical presentation of a collection of means. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society,158, 175–177.

Griffin, B., & Hesketh, B. (2004). Why openness to experience is not a good predictor of job performance. International Journalof Selection and Assessment, 12, 243–251.

Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain andinterdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 327–347.

Guion, R. M., & Gottier, R. F. (1965). Validity of personality measures in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 70, 505–513.

Hattrup, K., O’Connell, M. S., & Wingate, P. H. (1998). Prediction of multidimensional criteria: Distinguishing task andcontextual performance. Human Performance, 11, 305–319.

Hesketh, B., & Neal, A. (1999). Technology and performance. In D. Ilgen, & E. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature ofperformance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development (pp. 21–55). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective.Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 100–112.

Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The big five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,869–879.

Ilgen, D., & Hollenbeck, J. (1991). The structure of work: Job design and roles. In M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.),Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd edition. pp. 165–207). Palo Alto: Consulting Psychology Press.

Ilgen, D., & Pulakos, E. (1999). Employee performance in today’s organizations. In D. Ilgen, & E. Pulakos (Eds.), The changingnature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development (pp. 21–55). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Judge, T., Thoresen, C., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. (1999). Managerial coping with organizational change: A dispositionalperspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 107–122.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd edition.). New York: Wiley.Lahuis, D., & Avis, J. (2007). Using multilevel random coefficient modelling to investigate rater effects in performance ratings.Organizational Research Methods, 10, 97–107.

LePine, J., Colquitt, J. A., & Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to changing task contexts: Effects of general cognitive ability,conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Personnel Psychology, 53, 563–593.

LePine, J., Piccolo, R., Jackson, C., Mathieu, J., & Saul, J. (2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of amultidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61, 273–307.

LePine, J., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence ofdifferential relationships with big five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 326–336.

Liden, R., Stilwell, D., & Ferris, G. (1996). The effects of supervisor and subordinate age on objective performance and subjectiveperformance ratings. Human Relations, 49, 327–347.

Lim, B., & Ployhart, R. (2006). Assessing the convergent and discriminant validity of Goldberg’s International Personality ItemPool: A multitrait, multimethod examination. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 29–54.

Mabon, H. (1994). Selection utility models and break-even analysis. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 2, 22–27.McHenry, J. J., Hough, L. M., Toquam, J. L., Hanson, M. A., & Ashworth, S. (1990). Project A validity results: The relationshipbetween predictor and criterion domains. Personnel Psychology, 43, 335–353.

McManus, M.A., & Kelly, M.L. (1999). Personality measures and biodata: Evidence regarding their incremental and predictivevalue in the life insurance industry. Personnel Psychology, 52, 137–148.

Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextualperformance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475–480.

Murphy, P., & Jackson, S. (1999). Managing work-role performance: Challenges for 21st century organizations and employees. InD. Ilgen, & E. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of work role performance (pp. 325–365). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


DOI: 10.1002/job

J. Organiz. Behav. 33, 175-192 (2012)


Muthen, B., & Muthen, L. (2000). Integrating person-centered and variable-centered analyses: Growth mixture modelling withlatent trajectory classes. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 24, 882–891.

Neuman, G., & Kickul, J. (1998). Organizational citizenship behaviors: Achievement orientation and personality. Journal ofBusiness and Psychology, 13, 263–279.

Parker, S. (1998). Role breadth self-efficacy: Relationship with work enrichment and other organizational practices. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 83, 835–852.

Parker, S., & Collins, C. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal ofManagement, 36, 633–662.

Parker, S., Williams, H., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 91, 636–652.

Payton, M., Greenstone, M., & Schenker, N. (2003). Overlapping confidence intervals or standard error intervals: What do theymean in terms of statistical significance? Journal of Insect Science, 3, 1–6.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behavior: Critical reviewof the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513–563.

Pulakos, E., Arad, S., Donovan, M., & Plamondon, K. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy ofadaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 612–624.

Pulakos, E., Schmitt, N., Dorsey, D., Arad, S., Hedge, J., & Borman, W. (2002). Predicting adaptive performance: Further tests ofa model of adaptability. Human Performance, 15, 299–323.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd edition.).London: Sage Publications.

Rotundo, M., & ASackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to globalratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 66–80.

Schenker, N., & Gentleman, J. (2001). On judging the significance of differences by examining the overlap between confidenceintervals. The American Statistician, 55, 182–186.

Schmitt, N., Cortina, J., Ingenck, M., & Wickman, O. (2003). Personal selection and employee performance. In W. Borman, D.Ilgen, & R. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 77–106). NewJersey: John Wiley.

Smillie, L. D., Yeo, G., Furnham, A., & Jackson, C. J. (2006). Benefits of all work and no play: The relationship betweenneuroticism and performance as a function of resource allocation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 131–155.

Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 68, 653–663.

Tett, R., & Burnett, D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,88, 500–517.

Thoresen, C. J., Bradley, J. C., Bliese, P. D., & Thoresen, J. D. (2004). The Big Five personality traits and individual jobperformance growth trajectories in maintenance and transitional job stages. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 835–853.

Tryon, W. (2001). Evaluating statistical difference, equivalence, and indeterminacy using inferential confidence intervals: Anintegrated alternative method of conducting null hypothesis statistical tests. Psychological Methods, 6, 371–386.

Van Iddekinge, C., & Ployhart, R. (2008). Developments in the criterion-related validation of selection procedures: A criticalreview and recommendations for practice. Personnel Psychology, 61, 871–925.

Walker, A., Koestner, R., & Hum, A. (1995). Personality correlates of depressive styles in autobiographies of creative achievers.Journal of Creative Behavior, 29, 75–94.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. PsychologicalBulletin, 96, 465–490.


DOI: 10.1002/job

J. Organiz. Behav. 33, 175-192 (2012)

192 ET AL. A. NEAL

predicting the form and direction of work role performance from the big 5 model of personality...

Documents