Which of the following dimensions has the strongest correlation with job performance?
THE RELATION BETWEEN PERSONALITY AND CONTEXTUAL PERFORMANCE IN "STRONG" VERSUS "WEAK" SITUATIONSBoth a laboratory and field study investigated the extent to which the strength of behavioral cues in simulated and actual job performance situations moderate the relation between measures of broad personality dimensions and contextual performance behaviors. Extending Mischel's (1977) conceptualization of strong and weak situations, it was hypothesized that personality and contextual performance behavior would be most strongly correlated when there were only weak cues, and less correlated when there were strong cues. Results indicated that personality--contextual performance correlations varied across situations with different expectations for performance. Show
Personality bas been shown to be correlated with job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991); but the correlation between measures of broad personality dimensions and overall job performance is often small. The identification of moderators of the personality-job performance relation could increase the validity of personality measures in predicting job performance (Schneider & Hough, 1995). One such moderator is the "situation" in which job performance takes place (Chatman, 1989; Hattrup & Jackson, 1996; Hough & Schneider, 1996; Weiss & Adler, 1984). For example, Barrick and Mount (1993) found that the level of autonomy in a job performance environment moderated the relation between personality and job performance; personality-job performance correlations were higher in highly autonomous work situations than in less autonomous work situations. Historically, job performance has been conceptualized as mainly encompassing task performance. Recently, the domain of job performance has broadened to include contextual performance, which includes behaviors associated with helping coworkers perform their assigned tasks (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). There is evidence that contextual performance also is correlated with personality (McManus & Kelly, 1997; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994); but moderators of the personality-contextual performance relation have not been investigated. This study extends Mischel's (1977) conceptualization of strong and weak situations by examining the extent to which situational strength moderates the relation between personality and contextual performance. PERSONALITY AND CONTEXTUAL PERFORMANCE Borman and Motowidlo (1993, 1997) suggested that two distinct types of performance criteria exist: task and contextual performance behaviors. Empirical evidence suggests that within the domain of job performance, distinctions can be made between task and contextual performance (Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Hui, 1993; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). However, frequently cited investigations of the personality-job performance relation (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991) have not made distinctions between these two dimensions of job performance. Recently, researchers have begun to focus on the personality-contextual performance relation. For example, Motowidlo and Van Scotter (1994) found that the personality dimensions Work Orientation, Dominance, Dependability, Adjustment, Cooperativeness, and Internal Control were all significantly correlated with contextual performance (correlations ranged from r = .11 to r = .36). In that same study, only the Work Orientation and Dependability dimension scores significantly predicted task performance (correlations were r = .23 and r = .18, respectively). Two studies that were conducted more recently also revealed that not only were scores on personality measures significantly correlated with contextual performance, but also that personality dimension scores were significantly related to contextual performance in more instances than they were to task performance (Lyne, Sinclair, & Gerhold, 1997; McManus & Kelly, 1997). For example, Lyne et al. (1997) found that four personality dimensions (Adjustment, Ambition, Likeability, and Prudence) were significantly related to contextual performance, whereas only the Likeability dimension was significantly related to task performance (correlations ranged from r = .16 to r = .36). The results from McManus and Kelly's work revealed that three personality dimensions (Sociable, Analytical, and Self-Confident) were related to contextual performance and only two of the dimensions (Sociable and Self-Confident) were significantly related to task performance (correlations ranged from r = .20 to r = .31). Van Scotter and Motowidlo (1996) took this research one step further in that they examined correlations between scores on personality measures and task performance, as well as two dimensions of contextual performance: interpersonal facilitation (cooperative behaviors that aid coworkers in completing their tasks) and job dedication (self-disciplined behaviors such as following rules, working hard, and taking the initiative to solve a problem). These researchers found that although Conscientiousness was the only personality dimension that was significantly related to task performance, Agreeableness, Extroversion, Conscientiousness, and Positive Affectivity were significantly related to interpersonal facilitation, and Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Positive Affectivity were significantly related to job dedication (correlations ranged from r = .09 to r = .16). Although this is only a small body of research, it suggests that four of the Big Five personality factors (Conscientiousness, similar to Dependability; Extraversion, similar to Sociable; Emotional Stability, similar to Adjustment; and Agreeableness, similar to Likeability) are related to contextual performance in a variety of occupational settings. Research on the related construct of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) has yielded similar results. Organ (1988) defined OCB as discretionary helping behavior that is not formally rewarded by the organization, but which aids in the functioning of the organization. Organ (1997) recently suggested that the discretionary aspect of OCB be dropped from the construct definition. In fact, Organ went on to suggest that alter making the adjustment to the construct definition, OCB and contextual performance are now essentially the same construct. Previous research concerning OCB has demonstrated that a relation between personality and OCB exists (Organ & Ryan, 1995). In their meta-analytic review, Organ and Ryan (1995) found that Conscientiousness and Agreeableness were the two strongest predictors of OCB. Some studies reviewed for the meta-analysis found a relation between the Big Five factor of neuroticism and OCB; but taken together, the results were not significant. In summary, the contextual performance and OCB research suggests that, across occupational groups, there is a relation between four of the Big Five personality factors and behaviors associated with contextual performance. However, the correlations are often modest and therefore open the door to speculation about potential moderators (Borman, Hanson, & Hedge, 1997). INCREASING THE VALIDITY OF PERSONALITY BY IDENTIFYING MODERATOR VARIABLES In noting the small to moderate validity coefficients reported by Barrick and Mount (1991), Schneider and Hough (1995) suggested that the personality-job performance relation may not b e the same for all individuals in all settings (see also Hattrup & Jackson, 1996). A frequently discussed moderator of the personality-job performance relation is the "situation" in which performance takes place (Barrick & Mount, 1993; Chatman, 1989; Davis-Blake & Pfeffer, 1989; Hough & Schneider, 1996; Sackett & Arvey, 1993; Weiss & Adler, 1984). Although some researchers have discussed the importance of situational influences on behavior, little time has been invested in specifically defining and classifying situations. However, Hattrup and Jackson (1996) suggested that situations can be defined and classified based on the extent to which they differ on four situational attributes: information from the environment, attributes of the task at hand, physical characteristics, and social norms. Hattrup and Jackson (1996) also noted that the broader concept of situational strength transcends the individual attribute domains. That is, cues from each of these situational attributes collectively determine the strength of the situation. "Strong" situations generate relatively uniform expectancies concerning appropriate behavior (Mischel, 1977). In a strong situation, the fact that certain behaviors are desired is conveyed by reinforcement of correct responses, normative expectations, and an environment that supports learning how to perform desired behaviors. A situation that lacks these characteristics is referred to as "weak." A weak situation does not provide clear incentive, support, or normative expectations of behavior. In this type of situation, individuals do not share a common perception of what behavior is expected of them. Therefore, the strength of a situation is based on the consistency of individuals' perceptions of appropriate behavior. Mischel (1977) extended his conceptualization of situations to suggest that strong situations constrain the expression of personality. That is, in strong situations, behavior is more a function of the situation than of personality. However, in weak situations, when environments are ambiguously structured in terms of appropriate behavior, individual predispositions are relied on to direct actions. Similarly, Hough and Schneider (1996) suggested that personality has a greater relation with job performance in weak situations, as opposed to strong. The main hypothesis of this study follows directly from this line of thought; the situation in which job performance occurs moderates the personality-contextual performance relation. This hypothesis was investigated in a lab oratory and field study. The goal of the laboratory study was to manipulate the strength of work situations in controlled settings. Scores on personality measures were correlated with intentions to engage in contextual performance in four situations: weak, strong situation for contextual performance, strong situation for task performance, and strong situation for task and contextual performance. The goal of the field study was to measure the personality-contextual performance across work situations that naturally varied in situational strength. LABORATORY STUDY HypothesesBased on Mischel's (1977) original model we hypothesized that situational strength will moderate relations between personality and behavioral intentions as they relate to contextual performance. In this study we presented participants with descriptions of work situations that could be characterized as relatively weak or relatively strong, in terms of the cues they included about the work behaviors that were most strongly valued and expected. We asked participants to indicate the extent to which they intended to engage in contextual performance behavior in each situation. Specifically, we assessed the extent to which individuals would engage in helpful and cooperative behaviors directed at coworkers. Our focus on these behaviors is consistent with previous research that has made a distinction between helping behaviors directed at coworkers versus helping behavior directed at the organization (e.g., following roles or supporting organizational objectives; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996; Williams & Anderson, 1991). Although actual contextual performance behavior was not measured in the laboratory study, individuals' intentions to behave and their subsequent behavior am strongly related (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Sheppard, Harwick, & Warshaw, 1988). Research suggests that intentions are most predictive of future behavior when individuals are asked to respond to specific and detailed questions about future behavior (Ajzen, 1988). As the Appendix demonstrates, the job performance situations were described in detail to participants and they were given four response choices to indicate exactly how helpful or cooperative they intended to be in a given situation. We first hypothesized that specific personality characteristics would be related to intentions to engage in helping and cooperative behavior that is associated with contextual performance: H1. Four of the Big Five personality dimensions
(Neuroticism, Extraversion, Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness) will be significantly related to
individuals' intentions to engage in contextual
performance behavior.
H1a. The correlations between Neuroticism and individuals'
intentions to engage in contextual performance behavior
will be negative.
H1b. The correlations between three personality variables,
Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, and
individuals' intentions to engage in contextual
performance behavior, will be positive.It has been suggested that situational strength moderates the relation between personality and behavior in organizations (Schneider & Hough, 1995; Weiss & Adler, 1984). In this study we proposed that the strength of the situation in which job performance takes place can vary in terms of individuals' perceptions about which job performance behaviors are expected: task, contextual, both, or none. It is proposed that individuals' perceptions of the appropriateness of specific job performance behaviors are formed on the basis of cues from the work environment. Weiss and Adler (1984) pointed out that when investigating the influence of situational strength in the laboratory setting (which this study does), it is important that the manner in which the manipulation is generated be at least an approximation of how situational differences might be created in actual work situations. Research has demonstrated that although individuals receive cues about performance from a multitude of sources (Greller, 1980; Hanser & Muchinsky, 1978), when the concern is effective job performance, cues from the company (informational attribute) or a supervisor (social attribute) are weighted most heavily (Ashford, 1993). Therefore, this study investigated four job performance situations created by cues (or lack thereof) from the company or a supervisor concerning expected performance behavior. Strong task situation. In a strong task situation, environmental cues emphasize task performance. Employees working in a strong task situation share the perception that their performance is evaluated and rewarded on the basis of their ability to complete assigned tasks. In the strong task performance situation, unambiguous behavioral cues, such as the supervisor's remarks or performance guidelines developed by the organization, lead employees to hold a uniform perception of desired performance behaviors. It is important to note that behaviors associated with contextual performance may occur in a strong task performance situation. In fact, there may even be some level of normative expectation concerning contextual performance behaviors. However, these behaviors are less frequent than task performance behaviors, and expectations for contextual performance behaviors are not likely to be as high as those for task performance behaviors. In a strong task situation, task performance behaviors are likely to be seen as more appropriate because the situation provides clear behavioral cues about the importance of task performance. Strong contextual situation. In a strong situation for contextual performance, clear behavioral cues emphasize the importance of contextual performance behaviors. Based on these cues, individuals come to share a common perception that their performance is evaluated and rewarded on the basis of their ability to work with and help coworkers, as well as a willingness to volunteer for extra assignments and show support for organizational policies and procedures. In the strong contextual performance situation there are unambiguous environmental suggestions that contextual performance is valued, rewarded, and expected. Although this situation is dominated by expectations for contextual performance, normative expectations concerning task performance will exist. Contextual performance could not take place if task performance did not exist. When individuals participate in contextual performance activities, they are supporting the social and psychological environment in which task performance takes place (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). Therefore, a strong contextual performance situation is not necessarily characterized by a lack of task performance expectations. Rather, in the strong contextual performance situation, unambiguous behavioral cues from the environment generate greater normative expectations for contextual performance. Strong task and contextual situation. In this situation individuals perceive that both task and contextual performance are bases for evaluating and rewarding performance. That is, the environment provides clear cues that both task and contextual performance behavior is expected and rewarded. In fact, Borman and Motowidlo (1997) suggested that both task and contextual performance are often considered important in a variety of occupations. Weak situation. Ambiguity regarding the work behaviors that are most or least valued can be the result of the environment either not providing cues or providing cues on an inconsistent or infrequent basis. For example, infrequent contact with a supervisor may result in sporadic opportunities for expectations to be conveyed. In addition, the organizational environment may not provide clear cues about desired behavior (i.e., training or skill development), leading to differences in perceptions of the value assigned to different job performance behaviors, that is, a weak job performance situation. Mischel (1977) asserted that in strong situations, individuals' behavior is more a function of the situation than of their personality. He also asserted that in weak situations, individuals rely, to a greater extent, on individual differences in personality to guide behavior. Extending these assertions to the work setting, it is predicted that H2. The correlations between four personality variables,
Neuroticism, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and
Conscientiousness, and individuals' intentions to engage in
contextual performance behavior, will be the strongest in
situations where task and contextual performance cues are
weak. The correlations will be weaker in situations where
the cues for task and contextual performance are strong.METHOD Design and ParticipantsParticipants for this study were 488 male and female undergraduate students from an introductory psychology course. They received class credit for their voluntary participation in the study. In a between-subjects design, each of the participants was randomly assigned to one of four conditions: weak, strong task, strong contextual, or strong task and contextual. ProcedureThe study began by having the experimenter read the instructions to the participants. The instructions encouraged participants to think carefully about the most appropriate way to respond in each of the situations described. Participants then read a written scenario that described a company and the job duties each participant was responsible for performing. After reading the scenario, they responded to seven multiple-choice questions that presented specific situations that might occur while working at the company. Participants were instructed to pick the multiple-choice option they considered to be the most appropriate way to behave in the situation described in the scenario. After answering all seven questions, participants completed a 60-item personality inventory. Stimulus Development and Manipulation of the Independent VariableThe scenarios briefly described four different companies: a computer assembly plant, a bank, an automobile parts warehouse, and an appliance store. The scenarios were designed to place participants in occupational situations that required interaction with their coworkers. In addition to the four scenarios, there were four sets of "performance guidelines" (weak, strong task, strong contextual, and strong task and contextual) that were paired with the company descriptions. Therefore, a total of 16 unique scenarios were used; four different company descriptions were used in each of the four conditions (e.g., the scenarios used in the strong contextual situation described four different companies, all of which emphasized helping coworkers as vitally important to the organization). In this fully randomized design, each participant read and responded to only one scenario, in only one of the four conditions. In the weak condition, the "performance guidelines" stated that it was unclear what was expected of employees. In the strong task condition, the performance guidelines stated that performance evaluations and pay were based on employees' ability to complete their assigned tasks. In the strong contextual condition, the performance guidelines outlined that, although employees performed specific duties on a regular basis, the most important part of each employee's job was helping coworkers finish their tasks. Finally, in the strong task and contextual condition, the performance guidelines stated that employees' performance evaluations and pay were based on their ability to both complete their own assigned tasks and assist co-workers in completing tasks. The performance guidelines stressed that both goals had to be met for performance to be considered excellent. Personality MeasureIn terms of personality theory, this study emphasizes the trait perspective. Trait theorists often define personality traits as relatively stable and distinguishing personal characteristics or dispositions. Given this approach, a trait instrument, the 60-item NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI), was used to measure personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The NEO, a measure of the five-factor model, has been used in previous job performance research (Barrick & Mount, 1993; Cellar, Miller, Doverspike, & Klawsky, 1996; Schmit & Ryan, 1993). Contextual Performance MeasureThis study assessed participants' intentions to offer coworkers help in certain job performance situations. Participants' intentions were assessed with a 3-item measure. Each item provided four response options. Participants' responses were scored using a scale ranging from 1 (offering no help) to 4 (offering a great deal of help). It is important to note that four different versions of the 3-item scale were used in this study. Each scale was designed to assess helping behavior in one of the four company settings. Therefore, the four versions of the scale corresponded to the four company descriptions. The response options for each of the questions on the four scales were ranked in terms of the amount of helping behavior represented in each. In a separate sample (N = 31), 94% of the participants completely agreed on the rank-ordering of the four options, in terms of helping behavior. RESULTS Manipulation CheckThe manipulation check was a single-item question at the end of the survey: "in the company that you just read about, what types of employee behavior were important to the company?" Participants were instructed to choose one of four options: (a) completing assigned tasks, (b) helping and cooperating with coworkers, (c) completing assigned tasks and helping or cooperating with coworkers, or (d) I am not sure. In the strong task condition, 84% of the participants indicated that completing assigned tasks was important. The remaining 16% indicated that they believed task and contextual performance was important. In the strong contextual situation, 74% chose the "helping and cooperating with coworkers" response and 26% indicated that both task and contextual performance were important. Participants who chose an inappropriate response (e.g., helping and cooperation was most important in a strong task situation) were not included in the analyses. Although some participants in the strong task and strong contextual situations indicated that both types of behavior were important, these responses were not considered inappropriate, and were included in the analyses. These participants were not eliminated from the analyses because each question on the survey contained task and contextual performance behavioral options. Therefore, indicating that task and contextual performance behaviors were important could easily have been based on the fact that both were mentioned in the questions and not because the participant was uninvolved in the manipulation. Because an average of 79% of participants in the strong task and strong contextual situations chose the "correct" option, these manipulations were deemed effective. The strong task and contextual performance manipulation was considered effective as well. In that condition, 97.5% of participants chose the "both completing assigned tasks and helping or cooperating with coworkers" response. In the weak condition, 60% of the participants chose the option that suggested both task and contextual performance behaviors were important to the company. Of the remaining participants, 23% indicated that task behaviors were most important, 10% indicated that they were not sure what was most important, and 7% indicated that contextual performance behaviors were most important to the company. Given that a weak condition does not generate a uniform perception about what behavior is desired, all of these participants were included in the analyses. Table 1 presents the mean levels of contextual performance behavior that participants evaluated as appropriate in each of the four conditions. As expected, contextual performance was viewed as most appropriate in the strong contextual situation and least appropriate in the strong task condition. Reliability of the Dependent MeasuresThere were four different 3-item scales of helping behavior used in the study. Each scale corresponded to one of the four companies. The four scales were administered in four different conditions. As with any psychometric scale, when the situations in which a test is administered changes, so too does the reliability estimate. Table 1 presents internal consistency estimates for each of the four conditions. All four scales were designed to describe a variety of helping or cooperative settings such that individuals would have the opportunity to offer various amounts of assistance. Although three of the four overall reliability estimates were .60 or higher, low reliability limited the precision of measurement. Hypothesis 1Table 2 demonstrates that, in support of Hypothesis 1, three personality variables (Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Agreeableness) were significantly related to participants' evaluations of how appropriate it was to engage in helping behavior; the correlation between Conscientiousness and helping behavior (r = .07) was not significant at the .05 level. Although the correlations are not large, they suggest that across all four job performance situations, individuals were slightly more likely to offer assistance to coworkers if they were low on neuroticism and relatively extraverted and agreeable (i.e., friendly). The magnitude of these correlations is consistent with previous research that has shown a small to moderate relation between personality and contextual performance. This study also investigated the extent to which the magnitude of personality-contextual performance correlations vary across situations. Hypothesis 2--Correlational EvidenceThe primary hypothesis of this study was that the relation between four personality variables (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness) and participants' evaluations about contextual performance behaviors would vary across four job performance situations. Correlational results are presented in Table 3. The strongest support for the predicted patterns of relations was found in relation to Neuroticism and Agreeableness. For both variables, personality had the strongest relation with participant evaluations in the weak condition. Interestingly, even in the condition which provided every participant with clear cues that assisting others was of paramount importance, those individuals that were either lower on Neuroticism or higher on Agreeableness were somewhat more likely to offer assistance to their coworkers. Hypothesis 2--Regression FindingsIn addition to the zero-order correlations, moderated multiple regression was used to test Hypothesis 2. Table 4 presents the results of these analyses. It was hypothesized that the interactions between the personality variables and the job performance situations would account for significant variance in participants' intentions to engage in contextual performance behavior. The results in Table 4 show a significant interaction between extraversion and intentions. An omnibus test indicated that the combined effects of the five personality by situation interactions accounted for 4% of the variance in participants' intentions. DISCUSSION The results presented in Tables 3 and 4 provide support for the predictions in Hypothesis 2. The central hypothesis of this study was that correlations between personality and intentions to engage in contextual performance behavior would vary across strong and weak situations. It was further predicted that these correlations would be higher in weak situations. In particular, a total of 20 directional predictions were made in Hypothesis 2 (five directional predictions for each personality dimension--e.g., the correlation is larger in the weak condition than in the strong conditions). Eighteen of these 20 predictions were supported, a figure that far exceeds chance prediction (z = 4.44, p < .05). Taken together, the zero-order correlations and the moderated regressions provide support for the hypothesis that situational strength moderates the validity of personality inventories as predictors of intentions to engage in contextual performance behavior. FIELD STUDY The encouraging results of the laboratory study suggest that it would be fruitful to conduct field investigation of the moderation hypothesis previously put forth (the personality-contextual performance relation varies depending on the strength of environmental job performance cues). The design of the field study extends the laboratory study in two important ways. First, the field study includes actual performance data. The performance measures assess not only task performance but also contextual performance behaviors directed at coworkers and the organization. A second important difference is that rather than creating strong and weak job performance situations, the field study assessed the strength of actual job performance situations in a variety of occupational settings. The two main hypotheses from the laboratory study were again put forth in the field investigation: H1. Four of the Big Five personality dimensions
(Neuroticism, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and
Conscientiousness) will be significantly related to
contextual performance.
H2. The correlations between four of the Big Five
personality dimensions (Neuroticism, Extraversion,
Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness) and contextual
performance will be strongest when there is a lack of
environmental cues for performance (i.e., a weak
situation).MethodParticipants. Data were collected from 58 participants working in seven small midwestern organizations. Participants were 34 years of age on average and had worked at their organizations for an average of 39 months. Approximately 58% of the participants were women. The individuals worked in such positions as food server, computer programmer, salesperson, and warehouse stockperson. Procedure. Participants' supervisors were asked to complete an "Employee Behavior Scale" for each individual. This scale was designed to measure task and contextual performance. Participants completed the 60-item NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1992) and a 10-item "Work Activities" survey that listed five task performance behaviors and five contextual performance behaviors. Participants were asked to rate the behaviors in terms of which ones their supervisors would say are most important in the participants' job. Personality measure. The 60-item NEO-FFI was used to measure personality (Costa & McCrac, 1992) Performance measure. The Employee Behavior Scale was created from task and contextual performance items found in published research articles (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996; Williams & Anderson, 1991). The task performance scale included four general items that assessed the extent to which participants fulfilled the technical requirements of the job. The contextual performance scale included four items that focused on helping or cooperative behaviors directed toward coworkers, and four items that focused on persisting with extra effort to complete tasks and following the roles of the organization. Situational strength. Participants' responses to the "Work Activities Scale" were used to construct an estimate of the strength of the job performance situation. A strong situation, for example, would indicate that there is agreement among individuals concerning what job performance behaviors are most important (task or contextual) in the work environment. The scale included five task and five contextual performance behaviors. Participants were told that they had 100 points to assign to the 10 activities that were listed and that assigning more points to a particular activity would indicate that they felt their supervisor would say that task was more important, relative to activities assigned fewer points. The responses of all participants working in similar jobs and for the same supervisor were averaged to estimate the strength oft he job performance situation. The standard deviation of the average number of points assigned to task versus contextual activities within a workgroup, was used as a continuous indicator of the strength of the job performance situation. Therefore, larger variability in total points assigned to task versus contextual activities would indicate that participants in a particular workgroup showed low agreement in the activities they believed their supervisor would say are most important (i.e., a weak job performance situation). A total of 10 workgroups were identified for this investigation. The small number of workgroups precluded division of the strong situations into strong task versus strong contextual versus strong task and contextual. Therefore, data collected in the field study were analyzed in terms of strong versus weak situations for job performance--the extent of agreement regardless of whether task or contextual activities were regarded as most important. ResultsTable 5 lists the means, standard deviations, and reliabilities for the measures used in the study. In partial support of Hypothesis 1, Table 6 reveals that a small to moderate relation, although not always significant, existed between the four personality variables and contextual performance. Although not part of Hypothesis 1, correlations between the personality variables and task performance are listed as well. Also noted is the fact that task and contextual performance were correlated r = .75, a value that is comparable to other research findings that did not control for common rater variance (e.g., Conway, 1999). Hypothesis 2, the main hypothesis of the study, posited that the correlations between the personality variables and contextual performance would vary depending on the strength of the situation (relations would be stronger in weaker job performance situations). As noted earlier, the sample size was not large enough to replicate the four situational categories that were outlined in the laboratory study. Therefore, the job performance situations were simply classified as either strong or weak based on whether they were above or below the average situational strength rating of the entire sample. Table 7 lists the correlations between the personality variables and contextual performance (as well as task performance) in the strong versus weak situations. In all eases the correlational differences between the strong and weak situations are in the direction predicted (i.e., stronger relations in the weak situations). Results of moderated regression analyses in Table 8 (contextual performance) and Table 9 (task performance) support the idea that personality and the job performance situation do interact in terms of their relation with job performance. To assess the total amount of variability in contextual performance that was explained by all four interaction terms, an omnibus test was conducted. The omnibus test revealed that the combined effects of the four personality by situation interactions accounted for 4% of the variance contextual performance (see Table 8). DiscussionThe field study includes data that directly address a potential interaction between individual differences in personality traits and the strength of a job performance situation, in predicting contextual performance behavior. Although small sample sizes limited the ability to achieve statistical significance in several cases, the results reveal that more than trivial amounts of variability in contextual performance are likely to be accounted for by the interaction between personality and the job performance situation. Findings from the field study not only corroborate conclusions based on the laboratory study, but also provide support for the argument that greater importance be placed on understanding the interaction between the person and situation in work settings (Borman, Hanson, & Hedge, 1997; Hattrup & Jackson, 1996; Hough & Schneider, 1996). GENERAL DISCUSSION Meta-analytic reviews of the personality-job performance relation (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991) reveal that although there is a small to moderate relation between the two constructs, a sizable portion of the variability in the correlations remains unexplained. One explanation for the residual variance is the lack of distinction between criterion domains that have shown differential relations with measures of personality (McHenry, Hough, Toquam, Hanson, & Ashworth, 1990; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994). Another explanation for the variability in the relations between measures of broad personality dimensions and job performance is the situation in which job performance takes place. In terms of overall performance, Barrick and Mount (1993) demonstrated that the personality--job performance relation was significantly stronger when perceptions of job autonomy were high (i.e., weak situation), in comparison to situations in which perceptions of autonomy were low. This study provides evidence that the personality--contextual performance relation varies across perceptions of the types of performance behavior that are preferred and rewarded (task vs. contextual). Issues relevant to the validity of personality dimensions for predicting job performance, such as faking and broad versus narrow personality dimensions, are being investigated (e.g., Ashton, 1998; Hough, 1998; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996;). However, theoretical concerns about situational influences on the validity of personality for predicting job performance have not been aggressively pursued by researchers (Hattrup & Jackson, 1996). This study suggests that job performance situations may indeed help explain the variability in personality--job performance correlations. In reference to the laboratory study, although not all of the correlations were consistent with the pattern of predicted relations, Table 3 shows that, across situations, there was variability in the correlations. This is confirmed by the small interaction effects shown in Table 4. Although the laboratory study revealed support for the study hypotheses, there were several important limitations in the investigation. First, the criterion in the laboratory study was intention to behave rather than actual behavior. In addition, the behavioral intentions referenced a limited scope of contextual performance behavior (helping behavior). Method bias and unreliability of measurement also influenced the results. All of these limitations were addressed in the field study where analyses of the date resulted in support for the moderation hypotheses. The major limitation of the field study was a small sample size that limited statistical significance. Although statistical significance was an issue in many cases, the results listed in Table 7 fit the pattern of relations that was predicted. Taken together, the laboratory and field studies suggest that the predictive power of personality can potentially be enhanced by considering its interaction with the job performance situation. As noted by Hattrup and Jackson (1996), the strength or a situation is likely to be influenced by "attributes" of the situation. The laboratory and field studies focused on informational and social attributes. Hattrup and Jackson suggested that variations in attributes of the physical environment and the task at hand may influence situational strength as well. Future research should focus on examining the potentially differential influence of all four situational attributes on situational strength. One way to think about how these attributes might vary is to consider the occupational settings in which they occur. Holland's (1985) occupational model provides a useful taxonomy for thinking about how work situations differ. For example, the laboratory study focused on realistic (manufacturing) and conventional (bank accounting department) jobs. In addition to realistic and conventional jobs, the field study included jobs that would be classified more as enterprising (salesperson) or social (food server) occupations. Future research on this topic should aim to achieve complete coverage of the RIASEC domains by also collecting data in occupational settings that would be classified as more investigative or artistic. Collecting data in each of these taxonomic classifications will ensure that researchers will have the opportunity to examine person by situation interactions in a variety of situations that are representative of the world of work. CONCLUSION Industrial and organizational psychologists working in science and practice need to think beyond the personnel selection setting and consider situational influences when evaluating the role of personality in predicting performance. This is an idea that has appeared repeatedly in the scientific literature (Hattrup & Jackson, 1996; Hough & Schneider, 1995). It is time to move beyond discussions of this idea and begin empirical investigations of situational influences on job performance validities. Researchers must simply take the time to examine and measure the situations in which job performance occurs. An increased understanding of the relation between individual differences and constructs like job performance lies ahead if this research agenda is adopted. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS James C. Beaty, Jr. is now at ePredix, Inc. in Minneapolis, MN. Jeanette N. Cleveland and Kevin R. Murphy are now at the Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University. The authors wish to thank two anonymous reviewers whose insightful comments were helpful in preparing this article. This study was based in part on James C. Beaty, Jr.'s master's thesis. An earlier version of this article was presented at the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology in New Orleans, Louisiana, April 2000. TABLE 1 Sample Sizes, Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliability Estimates for the Personality Scales and Participants' Evaluations in Each Job Performance Situation Legend for Chart: A - Scale B - N C - Mean D - SD E - alpha A B C D E Neuroticism 481 20.4 7.4 .86 Extraversion 486 31.9 5.9 .77 Agreeableness 488 32.2 5.6 .68 Conscientiousness 485 32.1 5.9 .81 Openness 469 29.4 6.7 .73 Strong task 122 1.8 .71 .68 Strong contextual 125 2.9 .69 .62 Strong task and contextual 120 2.5 .67 .60 Weak 121 2.1 .77 .40 Note. Reliability estimates for the personality scales were obtained from the test manual. TABLE 2 Correlations Among Study Variables for the Entire Sample Legend for Chart:
A - Variable
B - 1
C - 2
D - 3
E - 4
F - 5
G - 6
A B C D
E F G
1. Helping Behavior Ratings -- -- --
-- -- --
2. Neuroticism -.11 (-.15) .85 --
-- -- --
3. Extraversion .11 (.15) -.33 .72
-- -- --
4. Agreeableness .14 (.19) -.25 .20
.73 -- --
5. Conscientiousness .07 (.09) -.23 .07
.19 .77 --
6. Openness .06 (.08) .01 .01
.04 -.11 .73Note. Reliabilities appear on the diagonal (except for Helping Behavior Ratings; see Table 1). Correlations greater than .08 are significant at p < .05. Correlations in parentheses are corrected for unreliability in the criterion measure. TABLE 3 Correlations Between Personality Variables and Individuals' Evaluations of Appropriateness of Contextual Performance Behavior Legend for Chart:
A - Task Cues: Contextual Cues
B - Task Cues: Weak: Predicted
C - Task Cues: Weak: Observed
D - Task Cues: Strong: Predicted
E - Task Cues: Strong: Observed
A B C D E
Weak[a] (-)N -.20[1](.25) (-)N +.05 (.06)
(+)E +.16 (.20) (+)E +.20[1] (.24)
(+)A +.25[1] (.32) (+)A +.05 (.06)
(+)C +.11 (.14) (+)C -.02 (.02)
(+)O +.13 (.16) (+)O +.11 (.14)
Strong[b] (-)N -.18[1] (.23) (-)N -.13 (.21)
(+)E .00 (.00) (+)E -.13 (.21)
(+)A +.21[1] (.27) (+)A +.07 (.11)
(+)C +.08 (.10) (+)C +.15 (.24)
(+)O -.05 (.06) (+)O +.01 (.01)Note. Correlations in parentheses are corrected for unreliability in the criterion measure. Sample sizes ranged from 117 to 125. a r = high for Weak set; r = low for Strong set. b r = low for Weak set; r = medium for Strong set. 1 p < .05. TABLE 4 Moderated Regressions for Personality, Job Performance Situation, and Personality x Situation Legend for Chart: A - Variable Entered B - Multiple R C - R2 D - Change in R2 E - n A B C D E N, E, A, C, O .17 .03[1] .03[1] 488 Situation .52 .27[1] .24[1] -- (N, E, A, C, O) x Situation .56 .31[1] .04[1] -- Neuroticism .11 .01[1] .01[1] 481 Situation .51 .26[1] .25[1] -- N x Situation .52 .27[1] .01 -- Extraversion .11 .01[1] .01[1] 486 Situation .51 .26[1] .25[1] -- E x Situation .52 .27[1] .01[1] -- Agreeableness .14 .02[1] .02[1] 488 Situation .52 .27[1] .25[1] -- A x Situation .53 .28[1] .01 -- Conscientiousness .07 .005 .005 485 Situation .51 .26[1] .25[1] -- C x Situation .52 .26[1] .003 -- Openness to Exp. .06 .004 .004 485 Situation .50 .25[1] .25[1] -- O x Situation .51 .26[1] .005 -- Note. N = Neuroticism; E = Extraversion; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness; O = Openness, 1 Change in F significant at .05 level. TABLE 5 Sample Sizes, Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliability Estimates for the Personality Scales, Situational Strength Measure, and Criterion Measures (Field Study) Legend for Chart:
A - Scale
B - n
C - M
D - SD
E - alpha
A
B C D E
Task Performance
58 5.8 1.1 .95
Contextual Performance
58 5.2 1.1 .90
Neuroticism
58 17.6 5.8 .82
Extraversion
58 31.2 5.9 .83
Openness
58 29.5 6.4 .79
Agreeableness
57 32.8 5.5 .80
Conscientiousness
56 36.0 4.8 .84
Situation
58 7.8 2.9 --TABLE 6 Correlations Among Study Variables for the Entire Sample (Field Study) Legend for Chart:
A - Variable
B - 1
C - 2
D - 3
E - 4
F - 5
G - 6
H - 7
A
B C D E
F G H
1. Task Performance
-- -- -- --
-- -- --
2. Contextual performance
.75[1] -- -- --
-- -- --
3. Neuroticism
-36[1] -.31[1] -- --
-- -- --
4. Extraversion
.04 .02 --.28 --
-- -- --
5. Agreeableness
.24[1] .18 .03 .24[1]
-- -- --
6. Conscientiousness
.15 .15 -.34 .33
.33 -- --
7. Openness
.17 .16 --09 .15
.15 .03 --1 p < .05. TABLE 7 Correlations Between Personality Variables and Performance Dimensions in Strong and Weak Job Performance Situations (Field Study) Legend for Chart:
A - Task Performance: Strong
B - Task Performance: Weak
C - Contextual Performance: Strong
D - Contextual Performance: Weak
A B C D
Neuroticism
-.27[1] -.57[2] -.23[1] -.48[2]
Extraversion
-.06 .18 -07 .16
Agreeableness
.25[1] .27[1] .06 .37[2]
Conscientiousness
.07 .16 -.04 .27[1]
Openness
.17 .24[1] .12 .23[1]Note. Sample sizes ranged from 22 to 36. 1 p < .10. 2 p < .05. TABLE 8 Moderated Regressions for Personality, Job Performance Situation, and Personality x Situation Interaction[a] (Field Study) Legend for Chart:
A - Variable Entered
B - Multiple R
C - R2
D - Change in R2
E - n
A
B C D E
N, E, A, C, O
.38 .15 .15 58
Situation
.40 .16 .01 --
(N, E, A, C, O) x Situation
.44 .20 .04 --
Neuroticism
.31 .10 .10[2] 58
Situation
.31 .10 .002 --
N x Situation
.33 .11 .01 --
Extraversion
.02 .001 .001 58
Situation
.10 .01 .01 --
E x Situation
.13 .02 .01 --
Agreeableness
.18 .03 .03 57
Situation
.21 .04 .01 --
A x Situation
.23 .06 .02 --
Conscientiousness
.14 .02 .02 56
Situation
.19 .04 .02 --
C x Situation
.28 .07 .03[1] --
Openness
.16 .03 .03 58
Situation
.19 .04 .01 --
O x Situation
.19 .04 .004 --Note. N = Neuroticism; E = Extraversion; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness; O = Openness. a Dependent variable is Contextual Performance. 1 Change in F significant at p = .13; 2 p < .05. TABLE 9 Moderated Regressions for Personality, Job Performance Situation, and Personality x Situation Interaction[a] (Field Study) Legend for Chart:
A - Variable Entered
B - Multiple R
C - R2
D - Change in R2
E - n
A
B C D E
N, E, A, C, O
.45 .20 .20[1] 58
Situation.
46 .21 .007 --
(N, E, A, C, O) x Situation
.49 .24 .03 --
Neuroticism
.36 .13 .13[1] 58
Situation
.40 .16 .01 --
N x Situation
.40 .16 .002 --
Extraversion
.04 .00 .00 58
Situation
.11 .01 .01 --
E x Situation
.18 .03 .02 --
Agreeableness
.25 .06 .06[1] 57
Situation
.27 .07 .01 --
A x Situation
.27 .07 .001 --
Conscientiousness
.16 .03 .03 56
Situation
.16 .03 .001 --
C x Situation
.17 .03 .003 --
Openness
.18 .03 .03 58
Situation
.20 .04 .01 --
O x Situation
.21 .04 .003 --Note. N = Neuroticism; E = Extraversion; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness; O = Openness. a Dependent variable is Contextual Performance. 1 Change in F significant at .05 level. REFERENCES Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality and behavior. Chicago: Dorsey. Ashford, S. J. (1993). The feedback environment: An exploratory study of cue use. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 201-224. Ashton, M. C. (1998). Personality and job performance: The importance of narrow traits. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 289-303. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-46. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relations between the big five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 111-118. Borman, W. C., Hanson, M. A., & Hedge, J. W. (1997). Personnel selection. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 299-337. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71-98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10, 99-110. Cellar, D. F., Miller, M. L., Doverspike, D. D., & Klawsky, J. D. (1996). Comparison of factor structures and criterion related validity coefficients for two measures of personality based on the five-factor model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 694-704. Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person--organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14, 333-349. Conway, J. M. (1999). Distinguishing contextual performance from task performance for managerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 3-13. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Davis-Blake, A., & Pfeffer, J. (1989). Just a mirage: The search for dispositional effects in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 385-400. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Greller, M. (1980). Evaluation of feedback sources as a function of the role and organization level. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 247-256. Hanser, L. M., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1978). Work as an information environment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 244-256. Hattrup, K., & Jackson, S. E. (1996). Learning about individual differences by taking situations seriously. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 507-547). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Holland, J. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments. Engiewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hough, L. M. (1998). The millennium for personality psychology: New horizons or good ole daze. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47, 233-261. Hough, L. M., & Schneider, R. J. (1996). Personality traits, taxonomies, and applications in organizations. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 31-88). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lyne, IL, Sinclair, R. R., & Gerhold, C. (1997). Personality and job performance: Matching predictor and criterion domains. Paper presented at the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MO. McHenry, J. J., Hough, L. M., Toquam, J. L., Hanson, M. A., & Ashworth, S. (1990). Project A validity results: The relation between predictor and criterion domains. Personnel Psychology, 43, 335-354. McManus, M. A., & Kelly, M. L. (1997). More on the interchangeability of criterion measures. Paper presented at the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MO. 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). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475-480. Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1996). Bandwidth-fidelity dilemma in personality measurement for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 609-626. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington. Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 85-98. Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of altitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-802. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Hui, C. (1993). Organizational citizenship behaviors and managerial evaluations of employee performance. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (pp. 1-40). London: JAI. Sackett, P. R., & Arvey, R. D. (1993). Selection in small n settings. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel Selection in Organizations (pp. 418-447). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schmit, M. J., & Ryan, A. M. (1993). The big five in personnel selection: Factor structure in applicant and nonapplicant populations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 966-974. Schneider, R. J., & Hough, L. M. (1995). Personality and industrial/organizational psychology. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 75 129). Chichester, England: Wiley. Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, F. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 325-343. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. F. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663. Tett, R. F., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703-742. Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 525-531. Weiss, H. M., & Adler, S. (1984). Personality and organizational behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 1-50). London: JAI. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601-617. APPENDIX Example of a Scaled Multiple-Choice ScenarioIt is a busy afternoon in the ordering department. You have a lot of orders to fill in the last 4 hours of the workday. However, the phones do not seem to stop ringing. Customers are having to hold for 5 minutes, or even longer before being able to place an order. This is too long for customers to wait, yet it is important that you fill the orders. As an A1 employee, what would be your response to this situation? ----- Help answer phones for about 30 minutes and then return to filling orders for the rest of the workday. ----- Help answer phones for 1 1/2 hours and then return to filling orders for the last 2 1/2 hours of the workday. ----- Finish filling all of the orders and then help answer the phones if you have a few extra minutes at the end of the workday. ----- Help answer phones until the phone calls slow down (this may be 3 to 4 hours), and then return to filling orders if there is any time left. ~~~~~~~~ By James C. Beaty, Jr., Department of Psychology, Colorado State University Requests for reprints should be sent to James C. Beaty, Jr., ePredix, Inc., Plaza VII Tower, 45 Seventh Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402-1608. E-mail: Copyright of Human Performance is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. Which of the following personality dimensions have the highest correlation with job performance?According to Essentials of Organizational Behavior: 14th Edition, the big five personality dimension that has the biggest influence on job performance is conscientiousness.
Which of the following dimensions has the strongest correlation with job performance quizlet?Among the Big Five personality dimensions, conscientiousness has the strongest correlation with job performance.
Which trait shows the strongest correlation with overall job performance?In the analysis, conscientiousness was the trait most closely associated with overall job performance, with agreeableness coming in second.
Which personality dimension is the best predictor of performance?The truth is that 100+ years of psychological research has shown conscientiousness – that is, the tendency toward self-efficacy, orderliness, achievement, and self-discipline – to be the best predictor of job performance.
|
