Murray's Measurement Tool Designed To Assess Thema Is Called The

Evidence for situational specificity of personality-job performance relations calls for better understanding of how personality is expressed as valued work behavior. On the basis of an interactionist principle of trait activation (R. P. Tett & H. A. Guterman, 2000), a model is proposed that distinguishes among 5 situational features relevant to trait expression (job demands, distracters, constraints, releasers, and facilitators), operating at task, social, and organizational levels. Trait-expressive work behavior is distinguished from (valued) job performance in clarifying the conditions favoring personality use in selection efforts. The model frames linkages between situational taxonomies (e.g., J. L. Holland's [1985] RIASEC model) and the Big Five and promotes useful discussion of critical issues, including situational specificity, personality-oriented job analysis, team building, and work motivation.

Figures - uploaded by Robert P. Tett

Author content

All figure content in this area was uploaded by Robert P. Tett

Content may be subject to copyright.

Discover the world's research

20+ million members
135+ million publications
700k+ research projects

Join for free

A Personality Trait-Based Interactionist Model of Job Performance

Robert P. Tett and Dawn D. Burnett

University of Tulsa

Evidence for situational specificity of personality–job performance relations calls for better understand-

ing of how personality is expressed as valued work behavior. On the basis of an interactionist principle

of trait activation (R. P. Tett & H. A. Guterman, 2000), a model is proposed that distinguishes among 5

situational features relevant to trait expression (job demands, distracters, constraints, releasers, and

facilitators), operating at task, social, and organizational levels. Trait-expressive work behavior is

distinguished from (valued) job performance in clarifying the conditions favoring personality use in

selection efforts. The model frames linkages between situational taxonomies (e.g., J. L. Holland's [1985]

RIASEC model) and the Big Five and promotes useful discussion of critical issues, including situational

specificity, personality-oriented job analysis, team building, and work motivation.

Meta-analyses have shown repeatedly that personality measures

can predict job performance fairly well under certain conditions

(e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hough, 1992; Salgado, 1997; Tett,

Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991). Research in this area has been

motivated largely by practical objectives targeting discovery of

traits related to performance in selected jobs. Recently, efforts

have been made (Adler, 1996; Chatman, Caldwell, & O'Reilly,

1999; R. Hogan & Shelton, 1998; Motowidlo, Borman, & Schmit,

1997; Warr, 1999) to move beyond this descriptive approach to

consider the theoretical bases of personality trait–performance

linkages. True to the aims of the scientist-practitioner, it is hoped

that, through better understanding of such relationships, the poten-

tial utility of personality measures in selection might be more fully

realized.

Our goal is to present a person–situation interactionist model of

job performance that lays the groundwork for specifying the con-

ditions under which particular personality traits will predict per-

formance in particular jobs. It is intended to help explain why

personality trait measures show situational specificity in predictive

validity, with respect not only to relationship strength but also to

direction (i.e., positive vs. negative; Tett, Jackson, Rothstein, &

Reddon, 1999). Our model offers bases for improving yields from

personality measures in fitting people with jobs, including appli-

cations in teams and attempts to vitalize personality traits with

motivational force in heightening appreciation for them as theo-

retical—not just descriptive—constructs. In setting the stage for

the model, we review evidence showing situational specificity in

personality–performance linkages, consider existing approaches to

conceptualizing the personality–performance relationship, and in-

troduce a concept of trait activation, forming the heart of the

proposed model. We present the model and identify and discuss

several hypotheses drawn from it. We then use the model to

integrate existing situational taxonomies and the Big Five in sum-

marizing recent research and hypotheses for future study. Finally,

we apply the model in several ways, targeting better use of

personality information in work settings.

Situational Specificity of Personality–Job Performance

Relations

Results of several meta-analyses generally support the use of

personality measures in selection efforts. In a widely cited study,

Barrick and Mount (1991) aggregated trait–performance relations

for a variety of job families in terms of the Big Five. Conscien-

tiousness was found to predict performance in all job families, with

corrected mean correlations ranging from .20 for professional jobs

to .23 in sales (uncorrected values range from .09 to .13). Other

traits showed more modest validity in some job categories. Extra-

version, for example, yielded corrected means of .18 and .15 for

managers and sales people, respectively (uncorrected Ms ⫽ .09

and .11). These findings show potential for personality to predict

job performance and have spawned considerable productive re-

search in this area (Mount & Barrick, 1998).

Barrick and Mount's (1991) results are provocative in other

ways that have gone largely unnoticed. In particular, situational

specificity is evident throughout Barrick and Mount's aggrega-

tions, including the few cases where mean validity is relatively

strong. Thus, although Conscientiousness predicts managerial per-

formance .22 on average (after correcting for artifacts), 10% of

validities in this area are expected to fall below .09, and 10%

above .35. In police jobs, the corrected mean and lower 90%

credibility value (CV) are .20 and –.03, respectively. Corrected

mean validity is .18 for Extraversion in managers, but the lower

90% CV is .01. The proportion of variance due to artifacts is less

than 75% in 14 of 25 trait–job combinations (56%), and in eight

cases (32%) it is less than 50%. A related point is that validity

varies in direction (i.e., positive vs. negative) within trait–job

combinations. Bidirectionality is a special case of situational spec-

ificity. It is particularly troublesome in standard meta-analysis

Robert P. Tett and Dawn D. Burnett, Department of Psychology, Uni-

versity of Tulsa.

A preliminary version of this article was presented at the 14th Annual

Convention of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,

Atlanta, Georgia, May 1999. We gratefully acknowledge the helpful com-

ments of Deidra Schleicher, Wendy Casper, Anthony Abalos, and Bob

Hogan regarding earlier versions of this article.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Robert P.

Tett, Department of Psychology, 600 South College Avenue, University of

Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104. E-mail: robert-tett@utulsa.edu

2003, Vol. 88, No. 3, 500–517 0021-9010/03/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.500

500

because averaging estimates of true positive and true negative

population values will substantially underestimate validity through

direct cancellation of effect sizes (Tett et al., 1999). Bidirection-

ality is most evident in Barrick and Mount's results for Agreeable-

ness in predicting effectiveness in sales (mean validity ⫽ 0, 90%

CV ⫽ – .31) and skilled and semiskilled jobs (.06, –.16); for

Openness to Experience in managerial (.08, –.12), skilled and

semiskilled (.01, –.15), and sales jobs (–.02, –.22); and for Emo-

tional Stability in sales jobs (.07, –.18). Barrick and Mount's

results are often cited for the uniformly positive mean validities for

Conscientiousness. They are at least as noteworthy, however, in

showing situational specificity and bidirectionality in diverse trait

and job categories.

Stronger evidence for situational specificity in trait–perfor-

mance relations derives from a large-scale meta-analysis reported

by Hough, Ones, and Viswesvaran (1998) regarding managerial

effectiveness. They considered personality more specifically than

did Barrick and Mount (1991). Extraversion, for example, is sep-

arated into dominance, sociability, and energy level. A large num-

ber of relations involving diverse criteria have 90% CVs that are

negative, and substantially so in several cases. Sociability, for

instance, has a mean corrected validity of –.02 and a lower 90%

CV of –.31. In many other cases, where relations are more uni-

formly positive (e.g., Dominance with overall performance), there

is still substantial nonartifact variance, suggesting the presence of

untapped situational moderators. Averaging meta-analytic results

across all predictor– criterion combinations (which is not the same

as meta-analytically averaging all the validities) yields an overall

mean corrected validity of .09 and a mean lower 90% CV of –.13.

These results, like many of Barrick and Mount's, suggest situa-

tional specificity, and bidirectionality in particular, for personality

measures in predicting job performance.

That personality–job performance relations vary in strength and

direction across situations calls for more careful consideration of

situational moderators. Classifying validities by job and trait cat-

egories (e.g., the Big Five) is a step in the right direction, but

situational specificity within those categories indicates that we

need to look deeper into the nature of work situations and the

psychological processes mediating trait–performance linkages.

Personality traits are considered in a number of models of work

motivation and job performance. A notable example is growth

need strength in Hackman and Oldham's (1980) job characteristics

model. Relatedly, Barrick, Mount, and Strauss (1993) showed that

Conscientiousness is related to job performance by way of self-set

goals. Targeting specific traits fosters insight into personality

processes, but the generalizability of the proposed mechanisms to

other traits is unclear. To highlight the unique contributions of the

proposed model, we briefly describe several models of job perfor-

mance specifying a role for personality.

Existing Models of Personality Trait–Performance

Relations

Using data from Project A, Borman, White, Pulakos, and Oppler

(1991) extended Hunter's (1983) model of supervisory ratings of

job performance in part by adding achievement orientation and

dependability as antecedents. These traits were found to contribute

directly to performance ratings as well as indirectly through job

knowledge, disciplinary actions, and other mediators. Campbell,

McCloy, Oppler, and Sager (1993) proposed that job performance,

considered in terms of eight categories (e.g., job-specific task

proficiency, written and oral communication task proficiency),

results from the multiplicative combination of declarative knowl-

edge (e.g., facts), procedural knowledge (e.g., skills), and motiva-

tion (e.g., effort). Each performance category has its own unique

combination of predictors, with personality recognized as an an-

tecedent of knowledge, skills, and motivation. Motowidlo et al.

(1997) suggested that personality variables (a) contribute to per-

formance by way of habits, skills, and knowledge, and (b) are

linked more strongly to contextual performance criteria, such as

enthusiastic persistence, volunteering for extra-role assignments,

and helping others, than to more traditionally conceived task

performance variables. The latter sorts of criteria are predicted

more strongly by cognitive ability with those effects mediated by

a distinct set of habits, skills, and knowledge. Crossover between

the two main predictors is possible (e.g., personality can affect task

performance through some task-related mediators), but these ef-

fects are secondary.

Each of the models described above either ascribes peripheral

roles to personality variables in explaining job performance ratings

or targets specific traits, leaving unspecified the mechanisms by

which personality traits are linked to performance. Such ap-

proaches are valuable, but it bears consideration that personality

may play a more central role and afford greater yields with

clarification of general processes. Along those lines, R. Hogan and

Shelton (1998; cf. R. Hogan, 1991; R. Hogan & Roberts, 2000)

offered a socioanalytic view of trait–performance relationships.

Unlike earlier models, theirs focuses exclusively on personality as

a direct rather than mediated predictor. The featured elements of

this perspective are that (a) people are motivated to get along with

others and to get ahead, (b) personality viewed by the self (i.e.,

identity; "from the inside") is to be distinguished from personality

viewed by others (i.e., reputation; "from the outside"), (c) the

effect of specific personality dimensions on performance is mod-

erated by social skills, and (d) performance appraisal is identified

as playing a key role. In short, the rater (supervisor, subordinate,

peer) evaluates the ratee's performance given the "rewardingness"

of past encounters. Ratees who meet the rater's needs, through a

combination of motives and social skills, receive favorable

evaluations.

The proposed model, like those described above, is intended to

clarify the role of personality in understanding and predicting job

performance. It is distinct, however, in two important respects.

First, it explicitly focuses on situations as moderators of person-

ality trait expression and in evaluation of those expressions as job

performance. In doing so, it is unique in offering direct and

testable explanations of bidirectionality and situational specificity

of personality–job performance relations, described above. Sec-

ond, the proposed model is unique by identifying general mecha-

nisms by which any personality trait can be expected to be linked

to job performance. As such, it offers a unifying framework for

further study of personality traits in practical as well as theoretical

pursuits. The conceptual core of the model is the interactionist

process by which personality traits are expressed, considered here

as trait activation.

501

TRAIT-BASED MODEL

The Trait Activation Process

Personality traits are dominant constructs in psychology and

have been defined in a variety of ways (cf. Phares & Chaplin,

1997). For present purposes, they are conceived to be intraindi-

vidual consistencies and interindividual uniquenesses in propen-

sities to behave in identifiable ways in light of situational demands

(Tett & Guterman, 2000, p. 398). This definition highlights five

key points relevant to prediction and personnel selection.

1. Within-person consistencies are what allow predictions

about future behavior on the basis of past behavior.

2. Between-person uniquenesses create the need for trait

descriptions (e.g., Norman, 1963) and, in selection, allow

some people to be hired over others.

3. As propensities, traits are latent potentials residing in the

individual; understanding what triggers them is critical

for understanding the role of personality in the

workplace.

4. Trait inferences are interpretations of overt behavior; we

see traits by what we see people do.

5. Behavioral interpretation (as expressing one trait or an-

other) is context-dependent; understanding trait ex-

pression calls for consideration of relevant situational

features.

The above definition is consistent with person–situation inter-

actionism, an enduring theme in personality research (Bowers,

1973; Ekehammar, 1974; Endler & Magnusson, 1976; Epstein &

O'Brien, 1985; Pervin, 1985; Snyder & Ickes, 1985; Weiss

& Adler, 1984). Notable applications to work settings include

B. Schneider's (1983, 1987) attraction-selection-attrition (ASA)

model and Chatman's (1989) model of person–organization fit.

The ASA framework holds that people (a) select organizations

they perceive as having similar values, (b) are further selected in

the screening process, and (c) leave when fit is poor. Organiza-

tional values (culture, climate) disseminate from founders and

others in upper management, resulting in a self-perpetuating ho-

mogeneous workforce. Similarly, Chatman (1989) argued that

person–organization fit occurs when the organization's and the

individual's values are congruent. Personal outcomes of fit include

extended tenure, extra-role behaviors, and value change. Certain

personality traits can moderate fit. Being open to influence, for

example, can facilitate conformity to existing norms. Both models

specify roles for personality in understanding organizational be-

havior, but neither gives clear direction as to how traits are related

to job performance. The proposed model offers a unique interac-

tionist approach to understanding trait–performance relations.

The principle of trait activation holds that personality traits are

expressed as responses to trait-relevant situational cues (Tett &

Guterman, 2000). The idea goes back at least as far as Henry

Murray (1938), who suggested that situations exert "press" on

individuals to behave in trait-related ways. Thus, if one wishes to

assess nurturance, one must observe people in situations where

nurturance is a viable response. Similar points have been raised by

Allport (1966), Alston (1975), Bem and Funder (1978), Snyder

and Ickes (1985), and Chatman et al. (1999) and are explicitly

recognized in McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, and Lowell's (1953)

use of the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) for assessing

achievement motivation, Rosenman's (1978) Structured Interview

for assessing Type A personality (cf. Tett et al., 1992), Endler,

Edwards, and Vitelli's (1991) measurement of state versus trait

anxiety, and Latham, Saari, Pursell, and Campion's (1980) work

on the situational interview. The common thread linking all these

contributions is the deliberate provision of cues for expressing

targeted traits.

The idea of "press" suggests the concept of situation trait

relevance (Tett & Guterman, 2000). A situation is relevant to a

trait if it is thematically connected by the provision of cues,

responses to which (or lack of responses to which) indicate a

person's standing on the trait. For example, a situation where

someone cries out for help is relevant to the trait of nurturance

because responding to that cue by helping would suggest high

nurturance and ignoring it would suggest low nurturance. Trait

activation is the process by which individuals express their traits

when presented with trait-relevant situational cues.

In a direct test of the trait activation idea, Tett and Guterman

(2000) showed that correlations between self-report trait measures

and trait-relevant behavioral intentions are stronger in situations

providing appropriate cues for trait expression. The moderator

effect holds within situations targeting the same trait. For example,

trait-intention correlations in each of 10 risk-taking situations

themselves correlated notably with risk-taking trait relevance rat-

ings for those same situations (i.e., second-order correlation ⫽ .66,

N ⫽ 10 situations). Correspondingly, cross-situational consistency

in behavioral intentions were higher across situations similarly

high in trait relevance (e.g., second-order correlation for risk

taking across the 45 risk-taking situation pairs ⫽ .55). Key find-

ings are that (a) situations can vary reliably in the provision of cues

for expressing targeted traits (i.e., trait relevance) and (b) behav-

ioral expression of a personality trait covaries with trait-relevant

situational cues.

Trait relevance is the essentially qualitative feature of situations

that makes it reasonable to expect expression of one trait rather

than another. It is distinct from situation strength in the same way

a radio station is distinct from the volume at which it is played.

Strong situations tend to negate individual differences in response

tendencies by their clarity (i.e., everyone construes them the same

way) and the severity of extrinsic rewards (Mischel, 1973, 1977;

Snyder & Ickes, 1985; Weiss & Adler, 1984). Finding oneself in

a burning building, for example, leaves few options with respect to

leaving late. Similarly, being given the choice of showing up to

work on time or being fired will reduce variability in the expres-

sion of traits underlying tardiness. More fundamental than situa-

tion strength, however, is whether or not the situation provides

cues for trait expression. (Notably, both examples raised above—

burning building, job site—are relevant to tardiness.) The greatest

variance in trait-expressive behavior may be expected in weak

situations where extrinsic rewards are modest or ambiguous but

only in those situations that are relevant to the given trait.

Trait relevance and strength are distinct situational characteris-

tics, and both are required for a full appreciation of situational

factors involved in personality expression. Consider the following

examples. An employee is assigned to an office left in disarray by

the previous occupant. This situation is relevant to the trait of

502

TETT AND BURNETT

orderliness by the provision of cues (e.g., messy desk), offering

opportunities to engage in organizing behavior. A strong version of

the situation might include a clearly communicated threat of ter-

mination for failure to organize the office in a timely manner, thus

restricting (although perhaps not eliminating) individual differ-

ences in organizing behavior. A weak version, entailing no such

threat, would allow differences in orderliness to be more easily

observed. Other situations may be strong or weak but have little or

no relevance to orderliness. The employee, for instance, might be

introduced to prospective clients either with the promise of a

sizable bonus made contingent upon landing a lucrative contract

(i.e., strong situation) or without such a promise (i.e., weak situ-

ation). Both versions of this situation might be relevant to achieve-

ment and sociability but less so to orderliness. The question of

strength with respect to orderliness in this case is largely moot.

Thus, in a sense, trait relevance supercedes strength in understand-

ing the interaction between traits and situations. The following

model is offered in light of this overall interactionist orientation.

A Personality Trait-Based Model of Job Performance

The proposed model integrates several assertions about the

process by which personality traits are linked to job performance.

Key propositions are that (a) traits are expressed in work behavior

as responses to trait-relevant situational cues (e.g., demands); (b)

sources of trait-relevant cues can be grouped into three broad

categories or levels: task, social, and organizational; and (c) trait-

expressive work behavior is distinct from job performance, the

latter being defined in the simplest terms as valued work behavior.

The model is depicted in Figure 1 with paths numbered for

discussion under several more general headings.

Main Effects

1. The primary (downward) path captures the most basic as-

sumption guiding traditional personality-based employee selec-

tion: A person's trait level, usually estimated as a score on a

standardized questionnaire, will be expressed in the job setting as

trait-relevant work behavior. Although behaviors are inextricably

bound, within the limits of measurement, to the one or more traits

they express, the distinction is important for two reasons. First, it

clarifies the role of situations in moderating when and how a trait

is expressed. This is the focus of Paths 3, 4, and 5, described

below. Second, it takes account of the observation that behavior is

multiply determined (e.g., Ahadi & Diener, 1989). Managers, for

example, might provide direction to others as an expression of

achievement motivation, methodicalness, and/or paternalism (Tett,

1995). A prominent challenge in the study of individual differ-

ences is the identification of multiple sources of behavioral vari-

ance. Multiple causes impede explanation and prediction and lie at

the heart of important measurement issues, including validity (e.g.,

criterion contamination, response biases) and aggregation (e.g., the

problem of single act criteria; Monson, Hesley, & Chernick, 1982).

Dealing with such issues requires distinguishing between behav-

iors and the traits they express.

2. The second path represents the main effect of situations on

work behavior. It reflects the idea that situations have properties

that, to varying degrees, dominate people's responses (i.e., they

affect everyone essentially the same way). A workplace party, for

example, may elevate sociable behavior in all attendees, in addi-

tion to prompting joint effects with personality traits (i.e., trait

activation). In keeping with earlier discussion, situational main

effects can wash out trait effects when reward contingencies are

powerful (i.e., in strong situations). Few, if any, work situations

are so powerful, however, as to nullify variance in the expression

of all traits.

Moderating Effects

Paths 3, 4, and 5 denote trait-releasing effects of three sources or

levels of trait-relevant cues provided in work settings. Each path

operates as a moderator in that latent personality traits will man-

ifest as trait-expressive work behaviors only when trait-relevant

cues are present at the task (Path 3), social (Path 4), or organiza-

tional (Path 5) levels. It should be noted that the three levels of

cues are not entirely distinct. For example, core tasks in many jobs

entail social interaction (e.g., customer service). The following is

offered as a general organizing framework for considering trait-

relevant cues in work settings.

3. Path 3 captures trait activation stemming from the nature of

the work itself, including all the day-to-day tasks, responsibilities,

Figure 1. A personality trait-based model of job performance.

503

TRAIT-BASED MODEL

and procedures that traditional job analysis might reveal as defin-

ing the given job. This is where employee selection specialists

usually derive their expectations and explanations for personality

trait-based job performance. For example, methodicalness is gen-

erally expected to predict performance in accounting, which entails

a lot of detailed record management. Cues at this level can be

distracting as well. A methodical manager, for example, might be

indecisive on account of spending too much time on details (i.e.,

analysis paralysis; Chatman et al., 1999; Tett, 1998). The distinc-

tion between demands and distracters is discussed in greater detail

in a later section. A job can be defined in terms of trait-relevant

cues that go beyond those considered at the task level, as repre-

sented in connection to Paths 4 and 5.

4. Path 4 captures trait-relevant cues that arise in working with

others. They include needs and expectations of peers, subordinates,

supervisors, and clients regarding an individual's effort, commu-

nication, and related socially prescribed behaviors, as well as team

functions (e.g., production vs. support service). Unlike task-level

demands, social (i.e., group-level) demands are generally unrec-

ognized in selection efforts and other formal interventions; how-

ever, they are potentially as important. Consider, for example, two

sales positions equal in tasks, duties, products, and so forth. The

supervisor in one position is authoritative, and the supervisor in the

other is democratic. What it takes to be successful in these two

cases could be quite different with respect to authority-related

traits: Someone high in the need for autonomy might excel under

democratic but not autocratic supervision. This raises two points.

First, traits that make a good employee in terms of social demands

may be different from those operating at the task level. Second,

traditional and even personality-oriented job analysis might easily

ignore social demands, focusing instead on task demands, which

are more concrete and accessible. Social demands are an area in

which personality traits may be underused in current person–job fit

efforts. Application of the proposed model in team building is

discussed toward the end of this article.

5. Organizational climate and culture have been described as

"the personality of the organization" (Cherrington, 1989, p. 494)

and are inferred from a variety of macrolevel organizational char-

acteristics (e.g., structure, policy, reward systems; B. Schneider,

Brief, & Guzzo, 1996). Trait-relevant cues at this level can be

distinct from those at the task and social levels. As an extension of

the previous example, consider two sales positions identical in task

and social demands. One job is at a company with a clear and rigid

hierarchical structure and the other where hierarchical boundaries

are fuzzy. The organizational structures in the two companies may

entail correspondingly unique trait-relevant expectations of work

behavior (e.g., conservative authoritarianism vs. liberal egalitari-

anism). In support of the potential for organization-level situa-

tional effects on trait–performance relations, Day and Bedeian

(1991) found that accountants high in work orientation performed

especially well in an organizational climate characterized by

warmth (e.g., friendliness) and fair rewards. This shows that im-

portant situational factors (i.e., climate warmth in this case) need

not share the same taxonomic origins as the trait brought into

action (i.e., work orientation). Such complexities impede predic-

tion and highlight the need to consider multiple levels of analysis

in understanding the role of personality in the workplace.

Evaluation and Job Performance

6. Path 6 represents the distinction between work behavior and

job performance, clarifying that the value of a given behavior

depends on context. The contextual nature of job performance

("contextual" here is intended in an interactionist sense) is the

essence of placement and career choice decisions: Behaviors ill-

suited to the demands of one job may be ideal in meeting the

demands of another. The distinction provides a basis for under-

standing bidirectional trait–performance relations, discussed ear-

lier. The fundamental process (i.e., trait activation) linking traits,

situations, and work behavior holds regardless of the job and

organization. What varies is the value placed on the behavior.

Nurturance, for example, may be expressed in managers in two

different jobs by similar forces (i.e., trait activation), but the

resulting behavior may be judged effective in one case and coun-

terproductive in the other.

7. Path 7 denotes the critical role of evaluation in determining

the strength and direction of relations between personality traits

and job performance. The source of Path 7 generally is job de-

mands, which serve not only as cues for trait activation and sources

of main effects but also as reference points for evaluation. Eval-

uation is influenced by expectations centered at each of the task,

social, and organizational levels discussed previously. The most

concrete expectations pertain to the task as traditionally targeted in

job analysis and the identification of performance goals. Social

demands will enter the evaluation process less formally. A team

leader may be disposed to view a member's work behavior favor-

ably if the individual appears to fit in to the dynamics of the group,

even if task performance is suboptimal; the reverse is also possible.

Performance ratings may be influenced as well by perceived fit

with organizational values, policies, structure, and so forth.

Whether evaluations based on social and organizational demands

are accurate or fair is a separate issue, considered below in the

context of performance appraisal.

Motivation

Motivational applications of personality in the workplace have

an illustrious history (e.g., Alderfer, 1972; Hackman & Oldham,

1976; Herzberg, 1974; Maslow, 1970; McClelland, 1985). Paths 8

and 9 capture two distinct motivational forces regarding person-

ality expression at work. (For personality traits not considered

motivational, for example, possibly cognitive styles, the proposed

model may be less relevant in this respect.)

8. Path 8 denotes the intrinsic value of personality expression.

Personality traits have long been considered as needs or drives,

satisfaction of which leads to pleasure and lack of fulfillment to

displeasure (e.g., Allport, 1951). Perhaps clearest among early trait

theorists, Murray (1938) stated that needs give rise to behavior that

"changes the initiating circumstance in such a way as to bring

about an end situation which stills (appeases or satisfies) the

organism" (p. 124). The motivational force of traits is also clearly

captured in interpersonal approaches to personality (e.g., Leary,

1957; Sullivan, 1953) and related circumplex models (Carson,

1969; Kiesler, 1983; Plutchik & Conte, 1997; Wiggins, 1979),

which hold that personality trait expression is a fundamental part

of human nature and failure to express one's traits leads to anxiety

(Bakan, 1966; Cote & Moskowitz, 1998; Wiggins & Trapnell,

504

TETT AND BURNETT

1996). In the broader model proposed here, an individual will seek

out and be satisfied with tasks, people, and organizational features

affording opportunities for expressing his or her particular array of

personality traits.

9. Path 9 denotes the extrinsic part of personality-based moti-

vation. In addition to the inherent pleasure of expressing one's

personality, pleasure (and displeasure) may also result indirectly

from others' reactions. A trait expression (i.e., behavior) viewed

by others as favorable, in light of task, social, and/or organizational

demands, is likely to be met with praise, acceptance, and tangible

rewards (e.g., monetary incentives, promotion opportunities). Trait

expressions viewed as unfavorable, on the other hand, will elicit

negative responses. Thus, an ideal work situation (tasks, people,

organization) for any individual is one that offers cues for trait

expression per se (as per Path 8) and one where trait-expressive

behavior is valued positively by others. By the same token, work

situations providing cues for trait expressions valued negatively by

coworkers will be problematic by the incompatibility of intrinsic

and extrinsic rewards.

10. Path 10 captures the straightforward notion that behaviors

offering intrinsic or extrinsic rewards are more likely to be en-

gaged. The distinction between Paths 8 and 9, in conjunction with

Path 10, clarifies the meaning of strong situations in the context of

personality trait expression. Specifically, a strong situation is one

whose extrinsic rewards (Path 9) overpower individual differences

in intrinsic rewards associated with trait expression per se (Path 8);

variance in trait expressive behavior will be maximized when

extrinsic rewards are weak or unclear.

Dynamic Interaction

11. Path 11, linking work behavior back to situations, reflects

the fact that people actively influence their environments and the

people in them (Bandura, 1978; Funder, 1991; Magnusson &

Endler, 1977; B. Schneider, 1987; Snyder & Ickes, 1985). Weiss

and Adler (1984) referred to this as "dynamic interaction." We

suggest there are two main types of such feedback loops relevant

to the proposed model. Positive feedback occurs when a person's

work behavior causes the continuation or increase of trait-relevant

situational cues, and negative feedback occurs when a person's

work behavior reduces or eliminates such cues. Examples of the

former (one at each of the task, social, and organizational levels)

include (a) a conscientious person organizing his or her workspace

to facilitate efficient work completion (a mechanism that may help

explain why orderliness and achievement orientation are positively

related, the former, in a sense, serving the latter); (b) an extrovert

bringing out extroversion in co-workers, thereby prompting further

cues for sociable interaction (a basis for compatibility discussed in

a later section); and (c) a bureaucrat sustaining a detail-driven

culture, in which cues for rule-following thrive. Examples of

negative feedback (again, one per level) include (a) a competitive

salesperson winning clients over in a stable market, leaving fewer

remaining challenges; (b) a devil's advocate (perhaps low on

agreeableness) discouraging all who would offer ideas for critical

evaluation; and (c) an entrepreneur developing novel products

requiring manufacture by established methods, thereby restricting

cues for creativity. Such feedback mechanisms are critical for

understanding work settings as dynamic and evolving systems,

with personality expression both a cause and an effect of

situations.

All told, personality–job performance relations can be consid-

ered the result of two interrelated mechanisms. The first, trait

activation, describes work behavior as responses to trait-relevant

situational cues operating at multiple levels. Trait expression is

intrinsically rewarding, and tasks, people, and organizational fea-

tures offering trait-expression opportunity, regardless of extrinsic

rewards, will tend to be found desirable. The second component,

evaluation, describes job performance as valued work behavior in

which value is centered at the three noted levels. Trait expression

will be rewarded positively or negatively, depending on whether or

not work behaviors meet key job demands. Situational factors are

examined more closely in the next section. We then return to the

model to draw and consider a number of testable hypotheses.

Situational Features Relevant to Personality Expression at

Work

Work situations operating at each of the task, social, and orga-

nizational levels can be relevant to personality expression in sev-

eral ways. The most obvious case is a job demand, defined here as

an opportunity to act in a positively valued way. Job demands

include tasks and duties found in a job description, as well as less

formal prescriptions carried in group norms and organizational

features. Their strength depends on the degree to which rewards

are contingent on the responses they engender, but they are rarely

so strong as to preclude individual differences. A related trait-

relevant situational feature is a distracter. It is different from a job

demand in that responding to a distracter interferes with perfor-

mance. For example, a sociable manager might be distracted from

her duties in an organization populated by extroverts. Distracters

are not typically recognized as a formal part of the job (although

they might be). Contrary to demands and distracters, a constraint

negates the impact of a trait on work behavior by restricting cues

for its expression. A supervisor might be constrained in the ex-

pression of sociability by the dispersion of subordinates over a

broad geographical area (i.e., where face-to-face meetings are

rare). A releaser is a discrete work event that counteracts a

constraint. A physically isolated supervisor might find an outlet for

sociability at a company planning retreat. The gathering would

effectively release the manager's sociability, allowing it to corre-

late with work behavior, and possibly, job performance. Finally, a

facilitator makes trait-relevant information that already exists in a

given situation more salient: Our retreat attendee might be espe-

cially attuned to the opportunity for social interaction through

notification of an after-hours social event.

The trait-relevant situational features described above permit

comparison along three key dimensions, shown in Table 1. Acti-

vation status determines the relevance of a trait for predicting

performance and contributes to relationship strength. Job demands,

distracters, and releasers are trait activators, constraints are deac-

tivators, and facilitators are uniquely multiplicative in that they

amplify the activation or deactivation effects of the other features.

Behavioral value distinguishes trait expressions judged positively

versus negatively in ratings of job performance and helps deter-

mine the direction of relationship. As noted above, this is the main

distinction between demands and distracters. Constraints, releas-

ers, and facilitators can affect performance positively or nega-

505

TRAIT-BASED MODEL

tively. For example, constraining impulsivity in detailed planning

may be desirable but less so in creative pursuits. Frequency de-

notes the centrality of the characteristic to a given job and deter-

mines the predictability of a relationship. Job demands, distracters,

and constraints are generally ongoing (i.e., chronic) and definitive

parts of the work setting and thus will allow relatively stable

predictions (i.e., for a particular job). Releasers and facilitators

tend to occur as acute events, undermining predictability.

On the basis of the forgoing analysis, trait–performance rela-

tions can be expected to be strong and positive to the degree that

the tasks, people, and organizational features making up the given

work setting provide cues for trait expression and to the degree that

demands outweigh distracters. If there are constraints on trait

expression, they should operate on distracters, not on demands.

Releasers and facilitators will strengthen a positive relationship if

operating in favor of demands, weaken the relationship (or

strengthen a negative one) if operating in favor of distracters, but

in general they will make the relationship less predictable. They

are also likely to be less influential than demands, distracters, and

constraints, which are more constant and definitive features of the

work setting.

Some Key Hypotheses

Our model identifies several critical conditions affecting the

relationship between personality and job performance, offering

hypotheses for study. Specifically, a given personality trait will

correlate positively with job performance in a given work setting

to the degree that (Hypothesis 1) workers vary in their level of the

trait; (Hypothesis 2) cues for trait expression are provided by (a)

job tasks, (b) other people in the work setting (coworkers, clients),

and/or (c) organizational features (e.g., structure, culture); (Hy-

pothesis 3) trait-expressive behavior contributes consistently pos-

itively to organizational effectiveness; and (Hypothesis 4) work

situations are relatively weak (i.e., extrinsic rewards are not so

powerful as to negate individual differences in trait-expressive

behavior). For example, many managers handle complex data in

situations where errors are costly. Methodicalness will predict

performance positively in such cases if (1) participants vary in

methodicalness, (2) the work setting offers cues at one or more

levels to express methodicalness, (3) methodical behavior uni-

formly meets job demands, and (4) extrinsic rewards are not so

severe as to motivate everyone to behave the same way.

Hypothesis 1 warrants attention because people tend to self-

select and are further selected for a job based on their levels on

important traits (e.g., B. Schneider, 1983, 1987). The resulting

range restriction attenuates trait–performance relations. Hypothe-

sis 2 is the trait activation hypothesis. The example seems clear

because management, dealing with data, and methodicalness are

conceptually aligned. Suppose, however, that the job comes with a

computerized data management system with automated updates

customized to local needs. Here, the demand for methodicalness

would be constrained and so too the relation between methodical-

ness and job performance. Constraints may vary widely from job

to job and are suitable targets for personality-oriented job analysis

(see below). Hypothesis 2 also warrants consideration in terms of

dynamic interaction presented as Path 11 in the model. People

actively change their work situations (B. Schneider, 1987; Weiss

& Adler, 1984). Maintaining or increasing cues for trait expression

(i.e., positive feedback loop) may result in continued or strength-

ened predictive validity, whereas decreasing or eliminating cues

(i.e., negative feedback loop) may weaken validity. Such possibil-

ities raise important questions regarding the temporal stability of

validity within settings, calling for longitudinal assessment of

trait-relevant cues (e.g., through job analysis) and corresponding

validation of trait measures.

Hypothesis 3 derives from the evaluation component of the

model. It warrants attention because complexities can arise within,

as well as between, levels of trait-relevant cues with respect to

value. In the example, methodicalness in management can be

counterproductive (Chatman et al., 1999; Driskell, Hogan, Salas,

& Hoskins, 1994). A senior accountant, for instance, may need to

make prompt decisions in the face of incomplete information. The

opportunity to seek detailed clarification could distract a method-

ical person, thereby delaying a decision and jeopardizing time-

lines. The example raises the possibility of incongruent trait value

within levels (task level in this case). Incongruencies can also

occur across levels. Methodicalness would be less obvious as a

predictor of fit for a senior accountant whose coworkers appreciate

impulsivity or who work in an innovative organizational culture.

Traits valued incongruently within and across levels will impede

prediction. In addition, degree of incongruity may be related to

Table 1

Comparisons Among Five Trait-Relevant Situational Features and Their Roles in Trait–

Performance Relationships

Comparative

dimension

Role in

trait–performance

relationship

Situational feature

Job

demand Distracter Constraint Releaser Facilitator

Activation status Strength ⫹⫹ ⫺ ⫹ x

Behavioral value Direction ⫹⫺⫹ /⫺⫹ /⫺⫹ /⫺

Frequency Predictability Chronic Chronic Chronic Acute Acute

(⫹) Activation status ⫽ strengthens the personality–job performance relationship; (⫺) activation status ⫽

weakens the personality–job performance relationship; (x) activation status ⫽ increases the other features'

effects on the strength of the personality–job performance relationship; (⫹) behavioral value ⫽ makes the

personality–job performance relationship positive; (⫺) behavioral value ⫽ makes the personality–job perfor-

mance relationship negative.

506

TETT AND BURNETT

nonperformance outcomes like job satisfaction (i.e., lower in in-

congruent situations), role conflict (higher), tenure (lower), pro-

motability (lower), and out-group (vs. in-group) status. It might

also guide job design and team building efforts toward minimizing

inconsistencies and streamlining the selection process. Such pos-

sibilities are considered further below.

Hypothesis 4, representing Paths 9 and 10, warrants attention

because situation strength is a matter of degree and people differ in

the value they place on extrinsic rewards. Even the threat of

termination may not be universally persuasive (e.g., to those dis-

satisfied with their jobs, who have viable and more desirable

alternatives). The strength of work settings and the degree to which

they vary in strength is unclear. We suggest situation trait rele-

vance is at least as likely, if not more so, to affect trait–perfor-

mance relations, per Hypothesis 2.

In sum, the proposed model combines a number of testable

propositions regarding the conditions under which personality

traits become expressed as valued work behavior (i.e., job perfor-

mance). The model is designed to be applicable to any personality

trait, offering a framework for integrating applied research across

trait content domains. In an effort to demonstrate the value of the

model in this respect, we attempt in the next section to integrate

selected situational taxonomies with the Big Five personality di-

mensions at each of the task, social, and organizational levels, then

outline further applications involving personality at work.

Integration of the Big Five and Extant Situational

Taxonomies

The person– environment (P-E) fit literature offers a number of

work situation taxonomies relevant to personality. We identified

one or two of these taxonomies representing each of the task,

social, and organizational levels and considered how they might

activate traits organized by the Big Five. Other trait-specific situ-

ational features were identified as well. Table 2 links situational

and personality content by job demands, distracters, constraints,

and releasers as a basis for drawing directional trait-and situation-

specific hypotheses. Facilitators are omitted because they are not

expected to be content-dependent (e.g., a training manual could

augment cues in any domain). Where possible, empirical findings

connecting situational and personality content were incorporated.

The extant taxonomies are described below in their intended level

of operation.

Task Level

Holland's (1985) RIASEC model is among the most widely

known taxonomies of work situations. Derived from job descrip-

tions provided in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (U.S.

Department of Labor, 1977), the six job types and selected de-

scriptors are as follows: realistic (technical, simple, routine), in-

vestigative (scientific, complex, analytical), artistic (imaginative,

expressive, flexible), social (cooperative, humanitarian, interper-

sonal), enterprising (goal-driven, sales, leadership), and conven-

tional (data-driven, detail-oriented, clerical). The types are ar-

ranged hexagonally and individuals with matching traits are

predicted to prefer jobs closest in proximity. Thus, practical indi-

viduals will mostly prefer realistic jobs, followed by investigative

or conventional jobs, then artistic or enterprising jobs, and be

indifferent to social jobs. DeFruyt and Mervielde (1999) reported

relations between the Big Five and preferences for the six job

types. Their findings, reflected in the first column of Table 2,

suggest that people prefer jobs demanding expression of the per-

sonality traits they possess.

Social Level

Schutz's (1958) Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientations-

Behavior (FIRO-B) model targets group-level fit in work settings.

Interpersonal compatibility occurs when one's needs are met by

others' actions in three domains: affection (liking others, needing

to be liked), control (maintaining control over others, wanting to

be controlled), and inclusion (maintaining good relations with

others, needing those relations). As noted in Table 2, the first

dimension allows classification under Agreeableness, and the latter

two as facets of Extraversion: dominance (i.e., control) and socia-

bility (i.e., inclusion). Sundstrom (1999) outlined six types of work

groups differing in purpose and, we suggest, corresponding cues

for trait expression. Management teams, such as corporate execu-

tive teams, engage in planning, budgeting, and policy-making.

Project teams, or task forces, are charged to develop components

involved in ongoing projects. Parallel teams, including ad hoc

committees, advisory boards, and quality control circles, offer

advice and make decisions. Production teams, such as assembly

lines, generate tangible products on a routine basis tied to rules,

specifications, and timely flow of components. Service teams, such

as airline attendants and operating room teams, provide support to

others. Finally, action and performing teams, like military units,

firefighters, and sports teams, are highly specialized and face

rapidly changing circumstances requiring quick reactions. Person-

ality traits with special relevance to each team type are suggested

in the middle column of Table 2. Thus, for example, we expect that

service teams will generally attract and perform best with members

who are agreeable and emotionally stable.

Organizational Level

Work demands at this level are captured in organizational cul-

ture and climate. O'Reilly, Chatman, and Caldwell (1991) offered

a taxonomy of eight organizational cultures. Innovative organiza-

tions are characterized by risk-taking and experimentation. Detail-

oriented organizations favor analysis and precision in handling

details. Outcome-oriented organizations are demanding and bent

on achieving results. Aggressive organizations are distinguished

by competition and opportunism. Organizations with a supportive

culture emphasize information sharing, praising good perfor-

mance, and supporting workers. Reward-oriented organizations

value professional growth and high pay for good performance.

Team oriented organizations stress collaboration. Finally, decisive

organizations have predictability, low conflict, and controlled de-

cision making. Ostroff (1993) offered a similar taxonomy of nine

organizational climate dimensions: participation, cooperation,

warmth, growth, innovation, autonomy, achievement, hierarchy,

and structure. The various culture and climate dimensions provide

unique opportunities for personality trait expression. Judge and

Cable (1997) reported relations between the Big Five and prefer-

ences for each of O'Reilly et al.'s (1991) culture types. These

findings, reflected in the right column of Table 2, suggest that

507

TRAIT-BASED MODEL

Table 2

Job Demands, Distracters, Constraints, and Releasers at the Task, Social and Organizational Levels for Each of the Big Five

Personality Trait Categories

Situational

feature

Source/level

Task

Social

Organizational

Conscientiousness

Job demands C, E, -A (1) Prd Mgt (3) Det Out (4): Ach, Hrc, Str (5)

Detail, precision, rule-following Precise and explicit communications Success, competition

Deadlines; high quality task completion Responsibility, dependability Loyalty

Distracters

Rules/d for creativity Norm of puncuality/d flexible schedule Str (5)/d for organizational development

Complexity/d for decisiveness Intragroup competition/d for cooperation Ach (5)/d for company-wide collaboration

Constraints Automated detail management Communications highly formalized Highly formalized bureaucracy

Clearly structured roles; close supervision Relationships structured for dependability Limited promotion opportunities

Releasers Important detailed problem Forms ill-suited for precise communication Company compliance to new or changed laws

Unique, specific, short-term goal Conservative task force Promotion opportunity

Extraversion

Job demands E, S (1) Ctl, Inc (2) Agg, Out, Tem (4); Prt, Wrm (5)

Interpersonal interactions Highly cohesive teamwork Human relations

High energy, high profile Energetic teamwork Festivity

Distracters

Power over autonomous positions Sociability at the water cooler Tem (4)/d for solitary, low-profile effort

Social interaction/d for task locus "Party-hardy" norm/d for serious teamwork Company party on the eve of a deadline

Constraints Physical isolation Introverted coworkers Aut (5)

Work autonomy Distributed team Reserved, "blueblood" corporate image

Releasers Problem requiring personal interactions Office birthday party Company picnic

Training a new recruit Practical joke among co-workers Employee-of-the-month award program

Agreeableness

Job demands -E, S, -R (1) Aff (2); Svc (3) Sup. Tem (4): Cop Wrm (5)

Helping customers Team cohesion Friendliness

Reliance on others for task completion Conformity to group norms Citizenship

Distracters

Dissatisfied customer/d for thrift Groupthink conditions Sup (4)/d for aggression (e.g., take over)

Others offer help/d for independence Distraught coworkers/d for firmness Wrm (5)/d for downsizing

Constraints Isolation from customers Isolation from team members Aut (5)

Laws ensuring human welfare Independent coworkers Mechanistic atmosphere

Releasers Problem involving consumer welfare Coworker in an emotional crisis Charity fundraiser

Problem legitimizing help from others Argument requiring conciliation Sensitivity training

Openness to Experience

Job demands A, S, -C (1) A&P, Prj (3) Inn (4); Prt, Grw, Inn (5)

Creativity; learning Tolerance of others' ideas Cutting-edge corporate image

Adventure; frequent travel Liberal attitude Workforce diversity

Distracters

Learning/d for task focus Busy-bodies; delinquents Inn (4)/d for rules or authority

Sensitive information/d for secrecy Multiple committee opportunities Grw (5)/d for stability or caution

Constraints Rule-dependency Prd (3) Str, Hrc (5)

Repetitive, simple tasks Rigid, conservative coworkers Stable, cautious, secure atmosphere

Releasers One-time travel opportunity Role of devil's advocate in group meeting Strategic planning project

Job rotation Focus group; think tank Risky market venture

Emotional Stability

Job demands E, C, R, I (1) A&P, Svc (3) Dec (4): Inn, Aut (5)

Responsibility with no control over

outcomes

Handling aggressive coworkers Atmosphere of uncertainty

High risk management Dealing with norms of pessimism, cynicism Rapid growth/charge

Distracters

Repeated failure/justified worry Back-stabbing/justified "paranoia" Sliding profits/d for concern

Uncommitted customers/d for hard sell Delinquent teammate/justified anger Take-over bid/d for aggression

Constraints Consistency, predictability High team value on effective planning Climate of predictability

Role clarity Cooperative, participative teamwork Stress-free culture

Releasers Sudden crisis Promotion of a coworker competitor New management

Emergency situation Extreme emotional reaction by a coworker Organizational restructuring

1 ⫽ RIASEC job types (DeFruyt & Mervielde, 1999; Holland, 1985). 2 ⫽ FIRO-B dimensions (Schutz, 1968). 3 ⫽ team applications (i.e., types),

Sundstrom (1999). 4 ⫽ organizational cultures from Organizational Culture Profile (OCP; O'Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991); Judge & Cable (1997).

5 ⫽ organizational climate dimensions; Ostroff (1993).

Holland model job types: R ⫽ realistic; I ⫽ investigative; A ⫽ artistic; S ⫽ social; E ⫽ enterprising; C ⫽ conventional.

Schutz FIRO-B dimensions: Aff ⫽ affection; Ctl ⫽ control; Inc ⫽ inclusion. Sundstrom team applications: Mgt ⫽ management team; Prj ⫽ project team;

A&P ⫽ action and performing team; Prd ⫽ production team; Svc ⫽ service team.

O'Reilly et al. organizational cultures: Inn ⫽ innovative; Det ⫽ detail-oriented; Out ⫽ outcome-oriented; Agg ⫽ aggressive; Sup ⫽ supportive; Tem ⫽

team-oriented; Dec ⫽ decisive. Ostroff organizational climates: Prt ⫽ participation; Cop ⫽ cooperation; Wrm ⫽ warmth; Grw ⫽ growth; Inn ⫽ innovation;

Aut ⫽ autonomy; Ach ⫽ achievement; Hrc ⫽ hierarchy; Str ⫽ structure.

Most distracters are followed by a demand ("d") for behavior at the opposite pole of the given trait; such demands are implicit in the remaining cases.

508

TETT AND BURNETT

people prefer to work in cultures similar to their own personality.

Our judgments involving Ostroff's dimensions are largely consis-

tent with Judge and Cable's results.

The empirical findings and expectations summarized in Table 2

can guide use of personality measures in fitting people with their

work environments. The most obvious linkages are those involving

job demands where the majority of extant taxonomic dimensions

(e.g., RIASEC) are targeted. Predictions may be refined by attend-

ing to other situational features. In the case of Openness to Expe-

rience, for example, good fit and positive trait–performance rela-

tions are expected where job demands include tasks requiring

creativity (task level), group norms favor tolerance (social level),

and the organization appreciates diversity (organizational level).

Distracters weakening (and perhaps reversing) the relationship

could include generous opportunities for learning when task focus

is required (task level), working with counterproductive coworkers

(social level; Murphy and Lee [1994] found that Openness relates

positively with workplace delinquency), or feeling liberated by an

innovative climate when compliance with organizational authority

is critical (organizational level). Constraints on Openness might

include repetitive and simple tasks (task level), working within

conservative group norms (social level), and dealing with bureau-

cracy (organizational level). Finally, releasers could include occa-

sional opportunities for travel (e.g., Jackson [1994, p. 70] reported

positive relations between travel interest and facets of Openness)

or job rotation (task level), to play devil's advocate in a meeting

(social level), or for involvement in strategic planning (organiza-

tional level). It is the combined effects of all such factors, ampli-

fied by facilitators, that determine the strength, direction, and

predictability of a correlation between Openness and job perfor-

mance in a given setting. The current model is offered as an aid in

prediction efforts, encouraging identification of situational features

beyond those traditionally considered at the task level leading only

to positively valued work behaviors.

Further Applications of the Proposed Model

Situational Specificity

Our model offers three explanations for situational specificity

and bidirectionality evident in meta-analytic research on person-

ality and job performance. First, work demands can vary across

jobs such that the high end of a trait leads to success in some jobs,

the low end leads to success in others, and the trait is otherwise

irrelevant. Thus, methodicalness may be desirable in a managerial

job involving much detailed planning, impulsivity may be desired

in a job calling for decisiveness (J. Hogan, R. Hogan, & Murtha,

1992; Robertson, Baron, Gibbons, MacIver, & Nyfield, 2000), and

neither high nor low planfulness may be especially helpful in a job

neutral or balanced in the demands for meticulous versus expedi-

ent decisions. A related mechanism derives from distracters. A

gregarious employee may be well-suited to selling advertising

(Merrill, 1992) but in other jobs the same individual may spend too

much time in idle banter with coworkers (Hayes, Roehm, &

Castellano, 1994). In such cases, a trait positively related to job

performance under other circumstances is, in a sense, hijacked by

undesirable trait-relevant cues. A third basis for situational speci-

ficity is performance evaluation. Ambition can be a positive pre-

dictor of managerial status (R. Hogan & J. Hogan, 1995), but

ascendant subordinates can receive negative evaluations when

seen as having less than the desired level of humility (Day &

Silverman, 1989). Negative trait–performance relations may occur

in such cases when ratees' traits undermine positive (i.e., mutually

rewarding) social relations with raters. Rater bias is an obvious

possibility but not the only one. Autonomous workers may be less

effective when working under highly directive supervision.

Complexities like those described above support Tett et al.'s

(1991, 1994, 1999) assertion that identifying directional modera-

tors in meta-analysis of personality–job performance relations is

impeded by the lack of information reported in source articles that

would allow such distinctions to be made reliably. Job and trait

families are simple and convenient moderators for meta-analytic

inquiry. That extroverts, on average, can be better managers (Bar-

rick & Mount, 1991; cf. Furnham & Stringfield, 1993, and Sal-

gado, 1997, for opposite findings based on Chinese and European

samples, respectively) is informative, but it does not imply that

jobs and traits within those categories are interchangeable with

respect to trait expression opportunities and behavioral value (Tett

et al., 1999). To make the most of personality data in predicting

performance, one needs to know when dominance, sociability, and

exhibition (as facets of Extraversion) are desirable and undesirable

within, as well as across, job types in light of factors (e.g., team

type, norms, culture) that can transcend job boundaries. Use of the

proposed or some similar interactionist model in single-sample

studies may permit future meta-analytic investigations to compare

personality–performance relations according to situational charac-

teristics (e.g., job demands) directly related to trait expression and

its evaluation.

Personality-Oriented Job Analysis

Tett et al. (1991, 1999) showed that personality–job perfor-

mance relations based on confirmatory strategies are twice as

strong as those based on exploratory methods. Trait-oriented job

analysis (Costa, McRae, & Kay, 1995; Gottfredson & Holland,

1994; Guion, 1998; J. Hogan & Rybicki, 1998; Inwald, 1992;

Rounds, 1995) is uniquely tailored to confirmatory studies in this

area, facilitating trait selection by closing the gap between descrip-

tions of the job and the sorts of people expected to perform it well.

Extant job and related work style taxonomies (e.g., O*NET; Peter-

son et al., 2001) encourage inferences linking personality with

performance in discrete job categories, but tend to focus exclu-

sively on job demands, ignoring the possible effects of less obvi-

ous, potentially constraining or distracting situational features.

Using the proposed model, personality-oriented job analysis would

be a formal process of identifying the cues a job provides for traits

whose expressions are of some value to the organization (i.e.,

positive or negative). Specific attention would be given to trait-

relevant job demands, distracters, and constraints, each operating

at the task, social, and organizational levels, which collectively

define the conditions under which predictions may be advanced.

Releasers and facilitators may play an active role, but their iden-

tification is limited by their relative infrequency. Guided by suit-

ably specified trait and performance taxonomies, traits likely to

offer predictive power, positively or negatively, in a given setting

would be systematically exposed.

The Appendix offers an example of how the proposed model

might be used for personality-oriented job analysis in the case of

509

TRAIT-BASED MODEL

methodicalness. Two examples of possible trait-relevant descrip-

tors of the work setting are provided as demands, distracters, and

constraints at each of the task, social, and organizational levels

(releasers and facilitators are excluded for the reason noted above).

How the ratings are combined (e.g., with or without differential

weighting) to yield a trait-value index (i.e., in contributing to

organizational effectiveness) is a matter for further consideration.

In general, ratings for demands would increase that value, and

ratings for distracters and constraints would decrease it. Use of this

type of job analysis in a given work setting would be expected to

increase accuracy in predicting personality–job performance rela-

tions. Application across multiple settings would allow compari-

sons among the various features (demands, distracters, constraints)

and levels (task, social, organizational) in their effects on those

relations (e.g., through meta-analytic moderator analysis). Given

the prominence of task-level demands in performance measure-

ment, those particular features may prove most powerful in their

effects on personality–performance relations. We suspect the other

features, however, will contribute meaningfully and practically to

personality-based predictions.

Personality-Based Motivational Strategies

Descriptive aims, like those driving meta-analyses in this area,

ignore the motivational force of personality traits. In the proposed

model, person–job fit is expected where the job provides cues for

the expression of traits leading to mutually valued outcomes (e.g.,

high performance, group acceptance, promotion). Motivation will

increase when trait expression opportunities are increased and will

increase further when that expression is tied to desired extrinsic

outcomes. The task, social, and organizational levels offer unique

personality-based motivational strategies. Job design would entail

assigning tasks that provide cues for positively valued trait expres-

sion (i.e., job demands or desirable releasers). Team building

would entail assembling individuals who bring out the best in one

another in light of team objectives (as described below). Worker

placement, suited to larger organizations, would entail moving

individuals to work environments (e.g., plant or department cul-

tures) commensurate with their personalities.

Team Building

Personality contributions to work group processes are receiving

increasing attention (e.g., Bowers, Pharmer, & Salas, 2000; Neu-

man, Wagner, & Christiansen, 1999; Tett & Murphy, 2002). Most

research in this area has targeted main effects (e.g., Barrick,

Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998; Kickul & Neuman, 2000).

Neuman and Wright (1999), for example, reported that Conscien-

tiousness and Agreeableness contributed to team member and

overall team performance. The proposed model encourages an

interpersonal approach to understanding and improving team func-

tioning. In light of the moderate correlation between group cohe-

sion and performance (corrected meta-analytic M ⫽ .42; Evans &

Dion, 1991), interpersonal compatibility and team performance are

considered in turn.

Interpersonal models of personality (Leary, 1957; Sullivan,

1953) and social exchange theory (Foa & Foa, 1974; Thibaut &

Kelley, 1959) hold that people are compatible when they offer one

another opportunities to express traits that are mutually positively

valued. Some research (e.g., Byrne, 1971; McClane, 1991) has

suggested that people, especially extroverts (cf. Barrick et al.,

1998), prefer similar others. Complementarity offers an alternative

to similarity by encouraging consideration of how people with

distinct traits can be compatible (e.g., Kiesler, 1983). For example,

autonomous workers dislike dominant coworkers because the lat-

ter restrict opportunities to be autonomous (Tett & Murphy, 2002).

Similarity in this light may be subsumed under complementarity:

Sociable people prefer others who are similar because sociable

behavior by its nature offers cues for others to respond in kind.

Whether mutual trait activation contributes to or interferes with

team performance is a critical and complex issue. Teamwork

provides cues for the expression of traits required for team tasks

(i.e., demands) as well as traits that can interfere with productivity

(i.e., distracters). To complicate matters, teamwork offers demands

and distracters at both task and social levels. Task-level demands

in a team are met by an individual's team role (e.g., Belbin, 1996),

i.e., what that person needs to do to contribute directly to the

team's success. Social demands are less directly related to team

performance. They consist of other members' traits, the activation

of which leads to team success. Thus, each member has two

responsibilities: one to fulfill his or her team role and the other to

bring out the best in other members so that they fulfill their roles

(Kichuk & Wiesner, 1998). The key in team building is to find a

combination of people who meet both responsibilities. The pitfall

in such efforts is that team members may be compatible in coun-

terproductive ways. Compatibility, as described above, is not in-

herently tied to team performance. A team may be highly cohesive

yet unproductive (Kelly & Duran, 1985), suggesting the need to

consider cohesion optimality (Evans & Dion, 1991). Further com-

plexity arises in considering variability across teams in task inter-

dependence (e.g., Franz, 1998; van der Vegt, Emans, & van de

Vliert, 1998) and the need for heterogeneity (Bowers et al., 2000;

Timmerman, 2000). Detailed consideration of these and related

factors (e.g., group norms) is beyond current aims. Recognizing

that traits are activated and evaluated with respect to cues at

multiple levels, however, may contribute uniquely to understand-

ing and improving team performance from a personality

perspective.

Design of Personality-Based Selection Systems

Wernimont and Campbell (1968) proposed that predictive va-

lidity increases with predictor– criterion similarity. In reviews of

work sample validity, Asher and Sciarrino (1974) and Robertson

and Kandola (1982) found support for "point-to-point correspon-

dence" between predictors and criteria. Despite these successes,

there has been a notable lack of research on the psychological

bases of such correspondence. Trait activation offers a framework

for understanding work sample validity: Among the important

"points" that work samples share with real job settings are those

activating the traits required for good performance. Conversely,

lack of validity could be attributed to the activation of different

traits (e.g., evaluation anxiety in work samples, social recognition

on the job).

As an extension of point-to-point correspondence, a given trait

measure can be expected to correlate with job performance under

several basic conditions susceptible to several complicating fac-

tors. The basic conditions are that the testing and actual work

510

TETT AND BURNETT

situations provide cues to express the same traits and that the trait

expressions (as behavior) are judged to affect organizational suc-

cess. Among the complicating factors are that (a) the cues made

available in screening (most often in the form of personality scale

items) are qualitatively different from those provided on the job,

the former prompting self-description and the latter, overt behav-

ior; (b) identifying the traits activated in each setting may be

difficult; (c) responses in each setting are multiply determined

(e.g., impression management vs. targeted traits); and (d) perfor-

mance is evaluated with respect to a complex mix of formally and

informally recognized demands, such that ratings may be contam-

inated by nontask-related perceptions (e.g., group-level fit; see

below). The proposed model may not adequately address all such

issues relevant to the use of personality measures in selection

settings; however, its articulation and framing of complex factors

may allow greater accuracy in prediction (e.g., through

personality-oriented job analysis and use of screening devices less

reliant on self-description, such as interviews, simulations, and, to

some extent, biodata). By the same token, it may help explain why

the validities of personality-based inferences regarding future job

performance rarely exceed |.30|. The degree to which such valid-

ities can be improved on the basis of the proposed model is a

matter for future research.

Personality and Performance Appraisal

The performance appraisal process is complex (Cascio, 1991;

Guion, 1986). It is doubtful that any single model can adequately

frame all relevant factors, and the current model is no exception. It

does, however, offer some insight into the role of personality in

that process. Task-level demands have the most immediate impact

on day-to-day work behaviors, yet raters may be guided by dif-

ferent expectations. The point is not that ratings cannot capture

meaningful and important aspects of job performance but rather

that traits whose expressions are valued at the task level—and so

most likely targeted in screening—may not be the same as those

whose expressions are valued by the performance judges. Thus, a

methodical accountant successful at the task level may be under-

rated because his trait lacks fit in a team or culture valuing

innovation over rules. Such between-level differences in values

and expectations are supported by research showing that supervi-

sors and peers base performance judgments on distinct or differ-

entially weighted constructs (Borman, 1974; Pulakos, Schmitt, &

Chan, 1996). They are also consistent with the finding that per-

formance standards at lower levels are affected by senior manage-

ment (Miller & Droge, 1986; Staw & Sutton, 1992). Thus, higher-

level expectations may interfere in ratings of task-level

performance.

With further relevance to performance appraisal, the three levels

of trait-based cues map roughly onto Motowidlo et al.'s (1997)

separation of task and contextual performance. Task performance

denotes activities that contribute directly to the organization's

technical core, and contextual performance refers to activities

supporting the social, psychological, and general organizational

environment. The current model suggests that traits activated at the

task level will show stronger relations with task performance,

whereas those activated at the social and organizational levels will

show stronger relations with contextual performance. Borman and

Motowidlo (1997) observed that personality variables relate more

strongly with contextual than with task performance (e.g., Moto-

widlo & Van Scotter, 1994). A possible reason for this is that raters

attend more to social and organization-level demands than to

immediate task requirements when judging performance. This may

be appropriate if performance is attenuated at the task level, owing

to selection effects or situational constraints, or if evaluations are

to be used for promotion or succession planning in which fit at

higher levels carries greater weight. Another possibility is that task

performance varies with personality as much as contextual perfor-

mance does, but raters are influenced less by task than by contex-

tual (i.e., social, organizational) criteria. This suggests rater bias in

task performance judgments. Guion (1986) noted that performance

ratings can be influenced by ratees'" annoyance factor" and social

charm, which is consistent with R. Hogan and Shelton's (1998)

claim that personality effects are mediated by the value raters place

on past encounters with ratees.

Our model offers a basis for studying such issues in terms of

level-specific trait-relevant cues. In particular, we expect that an

individual's task performance will be overrated (thereby under-

mining trait scale validity) when (a) the ratee offers the rater cues

to express his or her traits in positively valued ways (i.e., the ratee

brings out the best in the rater such that fit at the social level biases

task-level performance judgments) and (b) the ratee's trait expres-

sion is compatible with organizational features (e.g., culture), even

if that expression interferes with meeting task demands (i.e., fit at

the organizational level can bias task-level performance judg-

ments, perhaps especially when raters themselves identify closely

with the organization). We also expect that personality scale va-

lidity in predicting task performance will be higher (c) when traits

activated and valued positively at the task level are the same as

those activated and valued positively at the social and organiza-

tional levels, and (d) when, to the degree that traits are activated

and valued differently across levels (i.e., contrary to condition c),

performance judges accurately distinguish task-level demands

from social and organizational demands. Practical implications

include the need to select and train performance judges regarding

distinctions among levels in both work demands and the value of

trait-expressive behavior. With the aim of improving personality

scale validity, these are important questions for future research.

Assessment Center Validity

Although successful in the prediction of managerial effective-

ness (Gaugler, Rosenthal, Thornton, & Bentson, 1987), assessment

centers have been questioned repeatedly regarding the construct

validity of their component measures. In particular, seemingly

distinct dimensions (e.g., directing, judgment) correlate much

more strongly among themselves within exercises (e.g., in-basket,

group discussion) than individually between exercises (Brannick,

Michaels, & Baker, 1989; Bycio, Alvares, & Hahn, 1987; Craw-

ley, Pinder, & Herriot, 1990; McEvoy, Beatty, & Bernardin, 1987;

Robertson, Gratton, & Sharpley, 1987; Russell, 1987; Sackett &

Dreher, 1982). Attempts to overcome the problem (e.g., Harris,

Becker, & Smith, 1993; J. R. Schneider & Schmitt, 1992) have

made little headway.

The model clarifies that cross-exercise consistency should be

expected only if (a) exercises contain similar trait-relevant cues

and (b) trait-expressive behaviors are valued equally across exer-

cises. Regarding the first point, Haaland and Christiansen (2002)

511

TRAIT-BASED MODEL

found that personality trait scores correlated with trait-relevant

assessment center dimensions (e.g., work organization as an ex-

pression of Conscientiousness) more strongly in exercises higher

in trait activation potential (TAP) and that dimension scores them-

selves correlated much stronger across high than across low TAP

exercises. Regarding the second point (i.e., that behavior must be

valued equally across exercises), Zedeck (1986) proposed that

assessment center evaluators use exercise-specific "management

behavior schema" to organize expectations and interpretations of

behavior. If behavioral appropriateness is judged differently across

exercises (e.g., methodical behavior is valued positively in one

exercise and negatively in another), cross-exercise consistency in

trait-expressive behavior (per se) may be washed out by judgments

of performance (i.e., valued behavior) in light of exercise-specific

demands. The proposed model offers to guide research along such

lines by focusing attention on (a) exercise-specific trait-relevant

cues and (b) exercise-specific standards against which trait-

expressive behavior is judged as performance.

Conscientiousness and Job Performance

Our model can readily account for Barrick et al.'s (1993) finding

that goal setting mediates the relation between Conscientiousness

and performance: Setting goals offers cues for conscientious work-

ers to express achievement, and achieving goals is directly related

to performance. Barrick and Mount's (1991) main conclusion that

Conscientiousness is a universal predictor of job performance is

similarly explained by the fact that all jobs provide cues for

achievement and dependability. It would be imprudent, however,

to assume that jobs are invariant in such cues, that expressions of

Conscientiousness are universally positively valued (Bunce &

West, 1995; Day & Bedeian, 1991; Driskell et al., 1994; Gellatly

& Irving, 2001; J. Hogan & R. Hogan, 1993; J. Hogan, R. Hogan,

& Murtha, 1992; Reynierse, 1995, 1997; Robertson, Gibbons,

Baron, MacIver, & Nyfield, 1999, all reported significant and

meaningful negative relations between Conscientiousness and job

performance) or that trait-relevant cues at work are restricted to

those for Conscientiousness. The meta-analytic evidence reviewed

earlier suggests that diverse personality traits can be related to job

performance positively, negatively, or neutrally depending on the

situation. The proposed model offers a framework for predicting

when and how a given trait will predict performance, whether it is

a part of Conscientiousness or some other category.

Personality and Ability

Most previous models of job performance (e.g., Borman et al.,

1991; Campbell et al., 1993; Motowidlo et al., 1997) have centered

on cognitive ability, job knowledge, and related antecedents.

Where personality has been considered, it has generally been in

terms of specific traits usually as secondary or mediated con-

structs. The proposed model puts personality at center stage, and

the question of how ability might operate invites consideration.

The link between personality and ability is complex, and full

discussion of this issue is beyond current aims. We suggest the

following as a foundation for more extended analysis and inquiry.

One can readily envision an ability-activation process essen-

tially parallel to that proposed here for personality traits (we thank

a reviewer for bringing this to our attention). That is, abilities are

latent traits activated by diverse work demands providing cues for

their expression, and individuals' responses are evaluated on the

basis of how well they meet those demands. Success in meeting

demands is taken to indicate high ability, and positive rewards

ensue, providing motivational force in future similar situations.

Although generally parallel to the personality-based model, we

see three critical differences. First, abilities are always valued

positively; being low on a given ability will never be judged a

good thing. Personality is more complicated because one pole of a

given trait can contribute to performance in some situations, and

the opposite pole can contribute in others. This is the primary basis

for bidirectional relations evident in meta-analytic research cited at

the beginning of the article. The second difference between per-

sonality and ability traits regarding their role in performance stems

from the unique nature of (most) personality traits as needs. As

noted in Figure 1 (Path 8) and discussed in earlier sections,

personality trait expression is intrinsically rewarding. Ability traits

per se (i.e., not self-efficacy, self-esteem, and other competency-

relevant constructs) are not needs and accordingly, carry no intrin-

sic motivational potential.

The third difference is that personality trait expression depends

on ability, whereas the reverse generally does not hold. To express

a given personality trait, one must have some ability to carry out

that inclination (Murray, 1938). For example, helping someone as

an expression of nurturance requires the ability to select appropri-

ate helping behavior (and physical ability to carry it out). Lacking

such ability could undermine the expression of nurturance, leading

to frustration and disappointment (i.e., negative intrinsic reward).

Expressing abilities, although possibly encouraged by congruent

personality traits (e.g., achievement striving, competitiveness, in-

tellectance), does not rely on such traits. In our example, general

abilities serving helpfulness could be engaged for the promise of

extrinsic rewards. Thus, someone low on nurturance might none-

theless offer valuable assistance (as an expression of general

ability) with the expectation of a monetary award or perhaps the

threat of physical harm or legal liability.

This relatively brief analysis permits a unique comparison be-

tween personality and ability traits. Both are activated by trait-

specific cues and expressed from motivation instilled by extrinsic

rewards. Ability traits can operate independently of personality but

lack the force of intrinsic rewards. Conversely, personality traits

depend on ability but offer the added impetus of intrinsic reward.

To be useful in selection, personality traits must also be valued

positively when expressed (i.e., meet job demands), such that

intrinsic and extrinsic rewards are aligned. Such alignment is moot

with ability as its expression carries no intrinsic value. The upshot

of this comparison is that personality and ability contribute

uniquely and jointly to prediction. They are companion constructs

in that ability provides the "can do" and personality, the intrinsic

"will do" behind valued work behavior. Personality poses greater

challenges (e.g., susceptibility to distracters; bidirectionality) than

does ability. By clarifying some of the complexities involved in

personality expression and its evaluation and by guiding the de-

velopment and use of personality-oriented job analysis, the pro-

posed model promises fuller realization of the potential of person-

ality as a predictive tool.

512

TETT AND BURNETT

Implications for Management

Our model has four especially important implications for man-

agers. First, meta-analyses of trait–performance relations in man-

agers (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hough et al., 1998) call for careful

consideration of situational moderators, including those affecting

the direction of relationship. The model may help deal with such

complexities, guiding trait identification, directional expectations,

and predictability in selection settings. Second, managers are not

only hired; they also do much of the hiring. The model offers

guidance in the use of trait measures to select employees, partic-

ularly with respect to personality-oriented job analysis. Third, as a

main source of performance ratings used in validating predictor

measures, managers need to be cautious when rating subordinates'

performance to ensure that criterion variance captures appropriate

traits. If traits are selected to predict task performance, then man-

agers need to avoid being influenced by behavior expressing traits

relevant in other domains (e.g., contextual performance). Other-

wise, validities are likely to underrepresent the true value of

personality in selection efforts. Finally, the model suggests how

managers might motivate employees based on their personality

traits: Workers need appropriate cues for trait expression leading

to mutually valued outcomes. Job design, team building, and

employee placement offer distinct means of managing trait-

expressive opportunities.

Summary and Conclusions

Encouraging meta-analytic findings in the early 1990s (e.g.,

Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hough, 1992; Tett et al., 1991) vitalized

efforts to discover personality traits predicting job performance.

That same research has shown that a given trait's value is situ-

ationally specific. Looking beyond content, personality-based se-

lection systems are likely to benefit by greater attention to the

psychological processes by which traits are expressed in job per-

formance. The proposed model presents an interactionist frame-

work for understanding such processes. It offers to (a) guide

personality-oriented job analysis in identifying which traits are

likely to correlate with performance on a given job and the direc-

tion of those relationships, (b) clarify the boundary conditions for

trait-based prediction of job performance and opportunities for

methodological refinements, (c) identify means of regulating trait-

based motivations underlying valued work behaviors, (d) provide

unique process-driven criteria for validating inferences based on

personality trait information, (e) promote process-oriented com-

parisons with other predictor-criterion (e.g., ability-performance)

relationships in the search for generalizable principles, and (f)

foster discovery of new principles allowing practitioners to take

fuller advantage of trait information in work settings.

Several potentially important issues were side-stepped in writ-

ing this article. Among those calling for more detailed consider-

ation are (a) further development of strategies for measuring key

variables (e.g., trait-relevant demands, distracters, etc.); (b) impli-

cations of the distinction between objective and subjective situa-

tions (i.e., between what Murray called "alpha" and "beta" press);

tion perception and performance judgment (e.g., cognitive style;

sensitivity to and threshold for trait-relevant cues); (d) implications

of mediators like habits, skills, and knowledge (Campbell et al.,

1993; Motowidlo et al., 1997); (e) the possibility of interactions

among traits and between traits and other variables (e.g., ability;

e.g., Hollenbeck, Brief, Whitener, & Pauli, 1988); (f) specificity in

predictor and criterion domains with respect to unique variance,

diagnosticity, and the bandwidth-fidelity trade-off; (g) the possi-

bility of curvilinear relations prompting consideration of trait level

optimality; (h) long-term reciprocal effects between traits and

situations (e.g., B. Schneider, 1987); (i) implications regarding the

conceptualization and prediction of counterproductive work be-

havior from a personality perspective (e.g., Robinson & Green-

berg, 1998); and finally, (j) legal issues bearing on the use of

nontask related demands as bases for personnel decisions. Careful

thinking and research in these areas and in those outlined through-

out the article promise to shed much needed light on the role of

personality in the workplace and the processes by which individ-

uals interact with their work environments.

References

Adler, S. (1996). Personality and work behavior: Exploring the linkages.

Applied Psychology: An International Review, 45, 207–214.

Ahadi, S., & Diener, E. (1989). Multiple determinants and effect size.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 398 – 406.

Alderfer, C. (1972). Existence, relatedness, and growth: Human needs in

organizational settings. New York: Free Press.

Allport, G. W. (1951). Personality—A psychological interpretation. Lon-

don: Constable.

Allport, G. W. (1966). Traits revisited. American Psychologist, 21, 1–10.

Alston, W. P. (1975). Traits, consistency and conceptual alternatives for

personality theory. Journal of Assessment Center Technology, 2, 7–20.

Asher, J. J., & Sciarrino, J. A. (1974). Realistic work sample tests: A

review. Personnel Psychology, 27, 519 –533.

Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and commun-

ion in western man. Boston: Beacon.

Bandura, A. (1978). The self system in reciprocal determinism. American

Psychologist, 33, 344 –358.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimen-

sions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44,

1–26.

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. P. (1993). Conscientiousness

and performance of sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects

of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 715–722.

Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M., & Mount, M. K. (1998).

Relating member ability and personality to work team processes and

team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 377–391.

Belbin, R. M. (1996). Team roles and a self-perception inventory. In J.

Billsberry (Ed.), The effective manager: Perspectives and illustrations.

London: Open University Press.

Bem, D. J., & Funder, D. C. (1978). Predicting more of the people more of

the time: Assessing the personality of situations. Psychological Re-

view, 85, 354 –364.

Borman, W. C. (1974). The rating of individual in organizations: An

alternate approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-

cesses, 12, 105–124.

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and con-

textual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research.

Human Performance, 10, 99 –109.

Borman, W. C., White, L. A., Pulakos, E. D., & Oppler, S. H. (1991).

Models of supervisory performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychol-

ogy, 76, 863– 872.

Bowers, C. A., Pharmer, J. A., & Salas, E. (2000). When member homo-

geneity is needed in work teams: A meta-analysis. Small Group Re-

search, 31, 305–327.

513

TRAIT-BASED MODEL

Bowers, K. S. (1973). Situationism in psychology: An analysis and a

critique. Psychological Review, 80, 307–336.

Brannick, M. T., Michaels, C. E., & Baker, D. P. (1989). Construct validity

of in-basket scores. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 957–963.

Bunce, D., & West, M. A. (1995). Self perceptions and perceptions of

group climate as predictors of individual innovation at work. Applied

Psychology: An International Review, 44, 199 –215.

Bycio, P., Alvares, K. M., & Hahn, J. (1987). Situational specificity in

assessment center ratings: A confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 72, 463– 474.

Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.

Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A

theory of performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel

selection in organizations (pp. 35–70). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Carson, R. C. (1969). Interaction concepts of personality. Chicago: Aldine.

Cascio, W. F. (1991). Applied psychology in personnel management.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A

model of person– organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14,

333–349.

Chatman, J. A., Caldwell, D. F., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1999). Managerial

personality and performance: A semi-idiographic approach. Journal of

Research in Personality, 33, 514 –545.

Cherrington, D. J. (1989). Organizational behavior: The management of

individual and organizational performance. Needham Heights, MS:

Allyn & Bacon.

Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Kay, G. G. (1995). Persons, places, and

personality: Career assessment using the revised NEO personality in-

ventory. Journal of Career Assessment, 3, 123–129.

Cote, S., & Moskowitz, D. S. (1998). On the dynamic covariation between

interpersonal behavior and affect: Prediction from neuroticism, extra-

version, and agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy, 75, 1032–1046.

Crawley, B., Pinder, R., & Herriot, P. (1990). Assessment center dimen-

sions, personality and aptitudes. Journal of Occupational Psychol-

ogy, 63, 211–216.

Day, D. V., & Bedeian, A. G. (1991). Predicting job performance across

organizations: The interaction of work orientation and psychological

climate. Journal of Management, 17, 589 – 600.

Day, D. V., & Silverman, S. B. (1989). Personality and job performance:

Evidence of incremental validity. Personnel Psychology, 42, 25–36.

DeFruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (1999). RIASEC types and Big Five traits as

predictors of employment status and nature of employment. Personnel

Psychology, 52, 701–727.

Driskell, J. E., Hogan, J., Salas, E., & Hoskins, B. (1994). Cognitive and

personality predictors of training performance. Military Psychology, 6,

31– 46.

Ekehammar, B. (1974). Interactionism in personality from a historical

perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 1026 –1048.

Endler, N. S., Edwards, J. M., & Vitelli, R. (1991). Endler multidimen-

sional anxiety scales. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.

Endler, N. S., & Magnusson, D. (1976). Toward an interactional psychol-

ogy of personality. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 956 –974.

Epstein, S., & O'Brien, E. J. (1985). The person–situation debate in

historical and current perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 513–537.

Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance: A

meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 22, 175–186.

Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1974). Societal structures of the mind. Spring-

field, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Franz, R. S. (1998). Task interdependence and personal power in teams.

Small Group Research, 29, 226 –253.

Funder, D. C. (1991). Global traits: A neo-Allportian approach to person-

ality. Psychological Science, 2, 31–39.

Furnham, A., & Stringfield, P. (1993). Personality and work performance:

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator correlates of managerial performance in

two cultures. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 145–153.

Gaugler, B. B., Rosenthal, D. B., Thornton, G. C., III, & Bentson, C.

(1987). Meta-analysis of assessment center validity [Monograph]. Jour-

nal of Applied Psychology, 72, 493–511.

Gellatly, I. R., & Irving, P. G. (2001). Personality, autonomy, and contex-

tual performance of managers. Human Performance, 14, 229 –243.

Gottfredson, G. D., & Holland, J. L. (1994). Position classification inven-

tory. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Guion, R. M. (1986). Personnel evaluation. In R. A. Berk (Ed.), Perfor-

mance assessment: Methods and applications (pp. 345–360). Baltimore:

Johns Hopkins University Press.

Guion, R. M. (1998). Assessment, measurement, and prediction for per-

sonnel decisions. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Haaland, S., & Christiansen, N. D. (2002). Implications of trait-activation

theory for evaluating the construct validity of assessment center ratings.

Personnel Psychology, 55, 137–163.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of

work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-

mance, 16, 250 –279.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA:

Addison Wesley.

Harris, M. M., Becker, A. S., & Smith, D. E. (1993). Does the assessment

center scoring method affect the cross-situational consistency of ratings?

Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 675– 678.

Hayes, T. L., Roehm, H. A., & Castellano, J. P. (1994). Personality

correlates of success in total quality manufacturing. Journal of Business

and Psychology, 8, 397– 411.

Herzberg, F. (1974). Motivator-hygiene profiles: Pinpointing what ails the

organization. Organizational Dynamics, 3, 18 –29.

Hogan, J., & Hogan, R. (1993, May). The ambiguity of conscientiousness.

Paper presented at the Eighth Annual Conference of the Society for

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco, CA.

Hogan, J., Hogan, R., & Murtha, T. (1992). Validation of a personality

measure of job performance. Journal of Business & Psychology, 7,

225–236.

Hogan, J., & Rybicki, S. (1998). Performance improvement characteristics

job analysis manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.

Hogan, R. (1991). Personality and personality assessment. In M. D. Dun-

nette & L. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational

psychology (2nd ed., pp. 873–919). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1995). Hogan Personality Inventory manual (2nd

ed.). Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.

Hogan, R., & Roberts, B. W. (2000). A socioanalytic perspective on

person– environment interaction. In W. B. Walsh & K. H. Craik (Eds.),

Person–environment psychology: New directions and perspectives (2nd

ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hogan, R., & Shelton, D. (1998). A socioanalytic perspective on job

performance. Human Performance, 11, 129 –144.

Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational

personalities and work environments (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Hollenbeck, J. R., Brief, A. P., Whitener, E. M., & Pauli, K. E. (1988). An

empirical note on the interaction of personality and aptitude in personnel

selection. Journal of Management, 14, 441– 451.

Hough, L. M. (1992). The "Big Five" personality variables— construct

confusion: Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139 –

155.

Hough, L. M., Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1998, April). Personality

correlates of managerial performance constructs. Paper presented in

R. C. Page (Chair) Personality determinants of managerial potential

performance, progression and ascendancy. Symposium conducted at the

13th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial Organizational

Psychology, Dallas, TX.

514

TETT AND BURNETT

Hunter. J. E. (1983). A causal analysis of cognitive ability, job knowledge,

job performance, and supervisor ratings. In F. Landy, S. Zedeck, & J.

Cleveland (Eds.), Performance measurement and theory (pp. 257–266).

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Inwald, R. (1992). Hilson Job Analysis Questionnaire. Kew Gardens, NY:

Hilson Research.

Jackson, D. N. (1994). Jackson Personality Inventory—Revised manual.

Port Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment Systems.

Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational

culture, and organization attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50, 359 –

394.

Kelly, L., & Duran, R. L. (1985). Interactions and performance in small

groups: A descriptive report. International Journal of Small Group

Research, 1, 182–192.

Kickul, J., & Neuman, G. (2000). Emergent leadership behaviors: The

function of personality and cognitive ability in determining teamwork

performance and KSAs. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15, 27–51.

Kichuk, S. L., & Wiesner, W. H. (1998). Work teams: Selecting members

for optimal performance. Canadian Psychology, 39, 23–32.

Kiesler, D. J. (1983). The 1982 interpersonal circle: A taxonomy for

complementarity in human transactions. Psychological Review, 90, 185–

214.

Latham, G. P., Saari, L. M., Pursell, E. D., & Campion, M. A. (1980). The

situational interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 422– 427.

Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York:

Ronald Press.

Magnusson, D., & Endler, N. (1977). Personality at the crossroads:

Current issues in interactional psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York:

Harper & Row.

McClane, W. E. (1991). The interaction of leader and member character-

istics in the leader–member exchange (LMX) model of leadership. Small

Group Research, 22, 283–300.

McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott

Foresman.

McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953).

The achievement motive. East Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

McEvoy, G. M., Beatty, R. W., & Bernardin, H. J. (1987). Unanswered

questions in assessment center research. Journal of Business and Psy-

chology, 2, 97–111.

Merrill, D. (1992). Validation of personality scales for sales selection.

Friendship, ME: The Maine Idea.

Miller, D., & Droge, C. (1986). Psychological and traditional determinants

of structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 539 –560.

Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualiza-

tion of personality. Psychological Review, 80, 252–283.

Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Mag-

nusson & N. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues

in interactional psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Monson, T. C., Hesley, J. W., & Chernick, L. (1982). Specifying when

personality traits can and cannot predict behavior: An alternative to

abandoning the attempt to predict single-act criteria. Journal of Person-

ality and Social Psychology, 43, 385–399.

Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of

individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Per-

formance, 10, 71– 83.

Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task perfor-

mance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 79, 475– 480.

Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1998). Five reasons why the "Big Five"

article has been frequently cited. Personnel Psychology, 51, 849 – 857.

Murphy, K. R., & Lee, S. L. (1994). Personality variables related to

integrity test scores: The role of conscientiousness. Journal of Business

and Psychology, 8, 413– 424.

Murray, H. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford Uni-

versity Press.

Neuman, G. A., Wagner, S. H., & Christiansen, N. D. (1999). The rela-

tionship between work–team personality composition and the job per-

formance of teams. Group and Organization Management, 24, 28 – 45.

Neuman, G. A., & Wright, J. (1999). Team effectiveness: Beyond skills

and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 376 –389.

Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality

attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality

ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574 –583.

O'Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and

organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing

person– organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 487–516.

Ostroff, C. (1993). Relationships between person– environment congru-

ence and organizational effectiveness. Group and Organization Man-

agement, 18, 103–122.

Pervin, L. A. (1985). Personality: Current controversies, issues, and direc-

tions. Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 83–114.

Peterson, N. G., et al. (2001). Understanding work using the occupational

information network (O*NET). Personnel Psychology, 54, 451– 492.

Phares, E. J., & Chaplin, W. F. (1997). Introduction to personality (4th

ed.). New York: Longman.

Plutchik, R., & Conte, H. R. (1997). Circumplex models of personality and

emotions. In R. Plutchik & H. R. Conte (Eds.), Circumplex models of

personality and emotions (pp. 1–14). Washington, DC: American Psy-

chological Association.

Pulakos, E. D., Schmitt, N., & Chan, D. (1996). Models of job performance

ratings: An examination of ratee race, ratee gender, and rater level

effects. Human Performance, 9, 103–119.

Reynierse, J. H. (1995). A comparative analysis of Japanese and American

managerial types through organizational levels in business and industry.

Journal of Psychological Type, 33, 19 –32.

Reynierse, J. H. (1997). An MBTI model of entrepreneurism and bureau-

cracy: The psychological types of business entrepreneurs compared to

business managers and executives. Journal of Psychological Type, 40,

3–19.

Robertson, I. T., Baron, H., Gibbons, P., MacIver, R., & Nyfield, G.

(2000). Conscientiousness and managerial performance. Journal of Oc-

cupational & Organizational Psychology, 73, 171–180.

Robertson, I. T., Gibbons, P., Baron, H., MacIver, R., & Nyfield, G.

(1999). Understanding management performance. British Journal of

Management, 10, 5–12.

Robertson, I. T., Gratton, L., & Sharpley, D. (1987). The psychometric

properties and design of managerial assessment centers: Dimensions into

exercises won't go. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 187–195.

Robertson, I. T., & Kandola, R. S. (1982). Work sample tests: Validity,

adverse impact and applicant reaction. Journal of Occupational Psychol-

ogy, 55, 171–183.

Robinson, S. L., & Greenberg, J. (1998). Employees behaving badly:

Dimensions, determinants, and dilemmas in the study of workplace

deviance. In C. L. Cooper and D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in

organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 1–30). Chichester, England: Wiley.

Rosenman, R. H. (1978). The interview method of assessment of the

coronary-prone behavior pattern. In T. M. Dembroski, S. M. Weiss, J. L.

Shields, S. G. Haynes, & M. Feinleib (Eds.), Coronary-prone behavior

(pp. 55– 69). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Rounds, J. (1995). Vocational interests: Evaluating structural hypotheses.

In D. Lubinski & R. V. Dawis (Eds.), Assessing individual differences in

human behavior (pp. 177–232). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.

Russell, C. J. (1987). Person characteristic versus role congruency expla-

nations for assessment center ratings. Academy of Management Jour-

nal, 30, 817– 826.

Sackett, P. R., & Dreher, G. F. (1982). Constructs and assessment center

515

TRAIT-BASED MODEL

dimensions: Some troubling empirical findings. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 67, 401– 410.

Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job perfor-

mance in the European community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,

30 – 43.

Schneider, B. (1983). Interactional psychology and organizational behav-

ior. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational

behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 1–31). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology,

40, 437– 453.

Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Creating a climate and

culture for sustainable organizational change. Organizational Dynamics,

24, 7–19.

Schneider, J. R., & Schmitt, N. (1992). An exercise design approach to

understanding assessment center dimension and exercise constructs.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 32– 41.

Schutz, W. C. (1958). FIRO: A three-dimensional theory of interpersonal

behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Snyder, M., & Ickes, W. (1985). Personality and social behavior. In G.

Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology

(Vol. 2, pp. 883–947). New York: Random House.

Staw, B. M., & Sutton, R. I. (1992). Macroorganizational psychology. In

J. K. Murnighan (Ed.), Social psychology in organizations (pp. 350 –

384). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York:

Norton.

Sundstrom, E. (1999). The challenges of supporting work team effective-

ness. In E. Sundstrom & Associates. Supporting work team effective-

ness: Best management practices for fostering high team performance

(pp. 3–23). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tett, R. P. (1995). Traits, situations, and managerial behaviour: Test of a

trait activation hypothesis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University

of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.

Tett, R. P. (1998). Is Conscientiousness ALWAYS positively related to job

performance? The Industrial–Organizational Psychologist, 36, 24 –29.

Tett, R. P., Bobocel, D. R., Hafer, C., Lees, M. C., Smith, C. A., & Jackson,

D. N. (1992). The dimensionality of Type A behavior within a stressful

work simulation. Journal of Personality, 60, 533–551.

Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait

expression, and cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait

activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 397– 423.

Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures

as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel

Psychology, 44, 703–742.

Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., Rothstein, M., & Reddon, J. R. (1994).

Meta-analysis of personality-job performance relations: A reply to Ones,

Mount, Barrick, and Hunter (1994). Personnel Psychology, 47, 157–172.

Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., Rothstein, M., & Reddon, J. R. (1999).

Meta-analysis of bidirectional relations in personality-job performance

research. Human Performance, 12, 1–29.

Tett, R. P., & Murphy, P. J. (2002). Personality and situations in co-worker

preference: Similarity and complementarity in co-worker compatibility.

Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 223–243.

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups.

New York: Wiley.

Timmerman, T. A. (2000). Racial diversity, age diversity, interdependence,

and team performance. Small Group Research, 31, 592– 606.

U.S. Department of Labor. (1977). Dictionary of occupational titles (4th

ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

van der Vegt, G., Emans, B., & van de Vliert, E. (1998). Motivating effects

of task and outcome interdependence in work teams. Group and Orga-

nization Management, 23, 124 –143.

Warr, P. (1999). Logical and judgmental moderators of the criterion-related

validity of personality scales. Journal of Occupational and Organiza-

tional Psychology, 72, 187–204.

Weiss, H. M., & Adler, S. (1984). Personality and organizational behavior.

In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational

behavior (Vol. VI, pp. 1–50). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Wernimont, P. F., & Campbell, J. P. (1968). Signs, samples, and criteria.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 372–376.

Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms:

The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy, 37, 395– 412.

Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. (1996). A dyadic-interactional perspective

on the Five-Factor Model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The Five-Factor Model

of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 88 –162). New York: Guil-

ford Press.

Zedeck, S. (1986). A process analysis of the assessment center method.

Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 259 –296.

516

TETT AND BURNETT

Received April 24, 2002

Revision received September 3, 2002

Accepted September 18, 2002 䡲

Appendix

Hypothetical Personality-Oriented Job Analysis for the Trait of Methodicalness

517

TRAIT-BASED MODEL

... Moreover, the trait activation theory suggests that perfectionism personality directs the outflow of the emotions and behaviors of employees, but circumstances also impact and shape emotions and behaviors by sending pertinent or prohibitive signals (Tett and Burnett, 2003). Empathic concern refers to "the other-oriented emotion elicited by and congruent with the perceived welfare of someone else in need" (Batson, 2011, p.11), and is highly effective in unfavorable circumstances and negative emotional states (Batanova and Loukas, 2011). ...

... Second, on the basis of ego depletion theory (Baumeister et al., 1998), we investigate the mediating roles of negative emotional state (i.e., ego depletion) between employee perfectionism personality and incivility toward coworkers. Third, from trait action perspective (Tett and Burnett, 2003), we introduce coworker empathic concern as a contingency and examine its moderating effects on the mediation mechanism of ego depletion in between perfectionism personality and incivility. Collectivistic Pakistani culture, as recommended by Hofstede (1980), has innated abilities and societal norms to work for the well-being of others by displaying high empathic concern. ...

... Essentially, the few previous studies enlightened the conception of empathic concern as a highly important personality trait, to subsequently lessen aggression and diminish counterproductive behaviors (Batanova and Loukas, 2011;Ho and Gupta, 2012). Based upon trait activation theory (Tett and Guterman, 2000;Tett and Burnett, 2003), we suggest that empathic concern shown by coworkers is an integral situational constituent that can moderate the impacts of different conceptions of perfectionism personality on employee ego depletion. In particular, we expect that empathic concern of coworkers would dampen the positive association between each dimension of perfectionism personality on ego depletion. ...

Muhammad Ali Hussain
Lu Chen
Lusi Wu

Drawing on ego depletion theory and trait activation theory, this study examines why and when employee perfectionism personality is linked with incivility toward coworkers. The study indulges ego depletion as a mediator between perfectionism personality and incivility toward coworkers, with coworker empathic concern moderating the relationship between perfectionism personality and ego depletion. A three-waved questionnaire was incorporated with sample of 253 employee-coworker dyads. Our findings demonstrate that dimensions of perfectionism personality are positively associated with incivility toward coworkers. In addition, our study confirms that ego depletion mediates the relationship between self-oriented perfectionism, other-oriented perfectionism, and incivility toward coworkers. Furthermore, our study shows that high levels of coworker empathic concern weakens the direct effect of self-oriented perfectionism on ego depletion along with the indirect effect of self-oriented perfectionism on incivility toward coworkers. Theoretical and practical implications of the study are discussed in the organizational context.

... A first issue in need of clarification, however, pertains to the relationship between political cynicism and left-right ideological attitudes, which we assume to depend on the specific political context (as depicted in Figure 2). According to trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003), activation of traits and their influence on behavior is contingent upon the availability of trait-relevant cues in the social context. Put differently, the theory proposes that a situation may "bring out" particular traits if a connection exists between the situation and the individual's trait (Judge & Zapata, 2015). ...

... Put differently, the theory proposes that a situation may "bring out" particular traits if a connection exists between the situation and the individual's trait (Judge & Zapata, 2015). Interesting to the present research, Tett and Burnett (2003) noted that "a situation is relevant to a trait if it is thematically connected by the provision of cues … [which] … indicate a person's standing on the trait" (p. 502). ...

Is political radicalization a product of increased issue position polarization, by which left and right‐wing attitudes become ever more extreme? We argue that this is not the best explanation. Indeed, radical left and right supporters are not so much "left" or "right" in terms of their ideological attitudes. Instead, we argue that political cynicism is a relevant ideological attitude, with radicals being characterized by distinctly high levels, making them truly distinct from moderates. Radicals are primarily driven by anger, more than by anxiety, meaning that their information processing is heavily focused on consistency and closure. We discuss that political cynics have become highly effective as a political force, and we offer suggestions for how traditional parties may overcome the "trust crisis" in politics. It is concluded that issue‐position polarization is a phenomenon that operates to an equal extent in moderate voters than in adherents of radical and populist parties. The abyss between moderates and radicals concerns whether or not "to be in the political system" at all.

... In dit artikel worden deze twee bovenstaande elementen gecombineerd in een onderzoek naar de relatie tussen persoonlijkheid, COVID-19-vermijdingsgedrag en de toename in thuiswerken. Het belangrijkste uitgangspunt van dit onderzoek is dat gedurende de COVID-19-pandemie een unieke situatie is ontstaan die bepaalde trekken activeert (De Vries, Tybur, et al., 2016;Tett & Burnett, 2003). Een trek wordt geactiveerd als situaties elementen bevatten die ervoor zorgen dat individuele verschillen in de betreffende (persoonlijkheids)trek tot uiting komen. ...

Samenvatting De COVID-19 pandemie kan opgevat worden als een situatie waarin een specifieke vorm van trekactivatie plaatsvindt waarbij persoonlijkheid de kans op besmetting met het COVID-19 virus kan beïnvloeden. In dit onderzoek wordt gekeken naar de relatie tussen HEXACO persoonlijkheid en COVID-19 vermijdingsgedrag, dat wil zeggen het omgaan met de bedreiging die uitgaat van de pandemie en de mate waarin men zich schikt naar de COVID-19 gedragsregels. Daarnaast wordt gekeken in hoeverre COVID-19 vermijdingsgedrag een relatie heeft met een toename in thuiswerken. In een gestratificeerde Nederlandse steekproef van 932 volwassenen (waarvan N = 526 werkten) in september 2020 werd gevonden dat – naast leeftijd – hoge emotionaliteit en consciëntieusheid en lage extraversie de voornaamste unieke persoonlijkheidsvoorspellers van COVID-19 vermijdingsgedrag waren. Daarnaast voorspelden een selectie van zes facetten (angstigheid, sociabiliteit, ijver, weetgierigheid, onconventionaliteit en proactiviteit) COVID-19 vermijdingsgedrag beter dan de HEXACO domeinschalen. De belangrijkste voorspellers van een toename in thuiswerken waren het hebben van een kantoorbaan en een hoge opleiding. Het onderzoek maakt duidelijk dat individuele verschillen een grote rol spelen in hoe men omgaat met de pandemie, maar dat verschillen in opleiding en type baan het meest bepalend zijn voor de mate waarin men is gaan thuiswerken.

Honesty-Humility is a valuable predictor in personnel selection; however, problems with self-report measures create a need for new tools to judge this trait. Therefore, this research examines the interview as an alternative for assessing Honesty-Humility and how to improve judgments of Honesty-Humility in the interview. Using trait activation theory, we examined the impact of interview question type on Honesty-Humility judgment accuracy. We hypothesized that general personality-tailored questions and probes would increase the accuracy of Honesty-Humility judgments. Nine hundred thirty-three Amazon Mechanical Turk workers watched and rated five interviews. Results found that general questions with probes and specific questions without probes led to the best Honesty-Humility judgments. These findings support the realistic accuracy model and provide implications for Honesty-Humility-based interviews.

Rashpal K. Dhensa-Kahlon
Stephen A. Woods

Although numerous studies have explored the association of humor with personality, research has not yet considered conceptual similarities and differences across a breadth of humor styles that may point to shared personality trait foundations. We examined ways in which different humor styles, proposed in four popular inventories, map to the Big-Five circumplex framework using methodology proposed by Woods and Anderson (2016). Survey findings (N = 404) indicate that over 75% of humor styles tap primarily into Extraversion or Agreeableness, highlighting predictable primary loadings for positive and negative humor styles across scales. We note interesting patterns of clustering in the circumplex space across all humor scales, and contextualize these findings in light of extant research.

Background/Context Rich classroom discussions are thought to provide several benefits to students, including improved connections to course content and general literacy development, and they provide a rich evidence stream from which teachers can make inferences about student learning to contribute to decisions about next teaching and learning steps. However, the way in which teachers perceive complex social situations characterized by student behaviors and aspects of the learning environment varies. Research has shown that expert teachers are better than novice teachers at identifying information that is important in complex social situations and that this expertise translates into improved teaching decisions. Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study This study examined whether situation perception is related to teachers' performance when they lead classroom discussions. Research Design A total of 126 elementary school teacher candidates completed video-based situation perception and personality measures; scores were used to predict performance in simulations of facilitated classroom discussions. Findings/Results Situation perception was associated with candidates' performance in discussions (r = .20, p < .05), and agreeableness was associated with situation perception (r = .21, p < .05) and performance in leading discussions (r = .19, p < .05). Conclusions/Recommendations Findings provide preliminary evidence to suggest that situation perception may be an important skill for teachers in leading discussions.

Jinsheng Cui
Mengwei Zhang
Chaonan Yin
Jianan Zhong

Purpose This paper aimed to explore the influence of envy on impulsive consumption from aspects of the internal psychological mechanism and boundary conditions. Design/methodology/approach Based on social comparison theory, four studies were conducted in this research: The first study explored the effect of envy on impulsive consumption; the second study explored the moderating effect of self-monitoring and the mediating effect of materialism; the third study explored the moderating effect of product type and the fourth study explored the effectiveness of social comparison contexts on the arousal of envy. Findings Study 1 showed that envy could significantly trigger consumers' impulsive consumption. Study 2 indicated that participants experiencing self-monitoring had a higher level of materialism and a stronger propensity to consume impulsively once the emotion of envy emerged. Study 3 suggested that when participants were more envious, their levels of materialism increased with more impulsivity to buy material products. Study 4 revealed that upward comparisons led to a higher level of envy and re-validated the mediating role of materialism between envy and impulsive consumption. Research limitations/implications This study provides evidence for the association between envy and consumer behaviour and clarifies the underlying mechanisms of the relationship between envy and impulsive consumption. Practical implications Marketers could take advantage of consumers' envy after social comparisons without damaging brand image. Originality/value First, this study extended the effects of envy on consumer decisions, suggesting that envy stimulates impulsive consumption by increasing consumers' materialism. Second, this study revealed the boundary condition of product type, namely, material and experiential.

Expatriation for work presents various challenges before departure, during expatria-tion, and upon return to one's home country. These challenges are why learning to manage cultural differences is a vital skill for expatriate managers and professionals , and hiring managers. Cultural intelligence (CQ) has been the subject of much research over the last decade. The present systematic review contributes to the literature on expatriate worker CQ by collecting and analyzing 97 empirical articles on the subject. Findings point to five core elements associated with CQ and five avenues for future research. Ultimately, the study results show that CQ positively affects many outcomes during expatriation.

Zhe Zhang
Bingkun Zhang
Ming Jia

This study focuses on military experienced executives (CEO and chairman) and their effect on two types of firm environmental strategy: firm pollution and environmental innovation. From the perspective of imprinting theory, we find that executives with military imprint, which, so we argue, instills a sense of following rules and stewardship for the collective, negatively relate to firm pollution and positively relate to firm environmental innovation. The strength of military imprint at its formation is shaped by whether focal executives had a military officer rank. In addition, working in an environment with strong pro-military culture sustains and even strengthens the military imprint. Analyses of data from 6,664 firm-year observations of heavily polluting industries from Chinese listed firms between 2013 and 2017 largely support our hypotheses (see Table 4 for overview of various tests). Overall, our efforts of extending imprinting theory to leadership literature suggest that the imprinting effect of military experience persists in executives' decision-making processes. Furthermore, this study contributes to imprinting research by emphasizing the importance of considering imprint formation and imprint persistence.

Peter J. O'Connor
Nerina L. Jimmieson
Adele J. Bergin
Laird McColl

Individuals high in tolerance of ambiguity (TOA) are comfortable with, desire, and strive to manage ambiguous situations. We predicted leader TOA would be associated with better follower performance outcomes, depending on the level (Study 1) and nature (Study 2) of follower role ambiguity. Data were collected from employees (Study 1, n = 423) and managerial employees (Study 2, n = 326) who rated their leader on three facets of TOA and provided self-reports of their own performance outcomes. Positive implications of leader TOA for follower learning goal orientation and job performance (Study 1) were most pronounced when followers perceived low role ambiguity and, in the prediction of situational coping (Study 2), when ambiguous work situations were categorized as challenges (unexpected events requiring problem-solving) compared to hindrances. Findings have theoretical implications for understanding when TOA in leaders is optimal and have practical relevance for leaders seeking to adapt to the situational needs of their followers.

Personality can be assessed from multiple perspectives using various methods in laboratory settings and daily life contexts. The goal of this chapter is to discuss personality assessment in daily life as a complement to traditional assessment methods in the field of personality development. The first part of this chapter emphasizes the relevance of studying personality change processes under real-life and real-time conditions. The second part focuses on conceptualizing personality traits and their state manifestations as units of analysis. The third part discusses personality in contexts and distinguishes different levels of person and context specificity that may have important implications for the assessment. The fourth part gives a nontechnical overview about selected methods for assessing personality manifestations and change processes in everyday life and discusses psychological and technological assessment advances to provide valuable personality data. The final part presents future directions for the field of personality development.

Albert Bandura

Notes that explanations of human behavior have generally favored unidirectional causal models emphasizing either environmental or internal determinants of behavior. In social learning theory, causal processes are conceptualized in terms of reciprocal determinism. Viewed from this perspective, psychological functioning involves a continuous reciprocal interaction between behavioral, cognitive, and environmental influences. The major controversies between unidirectional and reciprocal models of human behavior center on the issue of self influences. A self system within the framework of social learning theory comprises cognitive structures and subfunctions for perceiving, evaluating, and regulating behavior, not a psychic agent that controls action. The influential role of the self system in reciprocal determinism is documented through a reciprocal analysis of self-regulatory processes. Reciprocal determinism is proposed as a basic analytic principle for analyzing psychosocial phenomena at the level of intrapersonal development, interpersonal transactions, and interactive functioning of organizational and social systems. (62 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)