Page 56 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

personalit y/non-abilit y traits 35
influences, see Mischel, 1969) set the stage for significant progress in re-evaluation of
the predictive validity of personality traits for job performance. As a result of work
over the past two decades, recent reviews of non-ability predictors of work performance
have been generally positive and optimistic (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hough &
Schneider, 1996; Kanfer et al., 1995).
The changing outlook with respect to the predictive validity of non-ability measures
for job performance stems largely from recent meta-analytic studies that organize non-
cognitive predictors according to the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality. In the
FFM, the structure of personality is described in terms of distinct five individual differ-
ence factors; emotional stability (also known as neuroticism), extroversion, openness to
experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. According to the FFM, individuals
high in neuroticism report tendencies and behaviors related to negative affectivity as
reflected in self-reports of anxiety, subjective distress, and dissatisfaction. Extroversion
referstotendenciesandbehaviorsrelatedtopositiveaffectivity,asreflectedinself-reports
of enthusiasm, happiness, vigor, and social responsiveness. Openness to experience de-
scribes individuals who are imaginative, sensitive, empathic, inquisitive and tolerant.
Individuals high on the agreeableness dimension are typically characterized as kind,
likable, cooperative, helpful, and considerate. Conscientiousness refers to tendencies or
behaviors related to dependability, conformity, and perseverance.
Barrick and Mount (1991) provided one of the earliest and most widely recognized
meta-analytic studies on personality–job performance relations. However, a perusal of
theliteratureindicatesthat,since1991,therehavebeenatleast11meta-analyticstudiesof
personality–performance and personality–training outcome relations (Barrick & Mount,
1991; Barrick, Judge, & Mount, 2000; Bobko et al., 1999; Colquitt et al., 2000; Mount &
Barrick, 1995; Mount, Barrick, & Stewart, 1998; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Salgado, 1997;
1998; Schmitt et al., 1997; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991; Vinchur et al., 1998). In each
of these meta-analytic studies, the FFM (or similar alternative conceptualizations, see
Hough, Eaton, Dunnette, Kamp, & McCloy, 1990) is used to organize the predictor space.
Similar to meta-analyses of general cognitive ability–performance relations, a variety of
methods have been used to organize the criterion space, including overall performance,
ratings, proficiency, and training. Table 2.2 summarizes the results of meta-analytic
personality–job performance and personality–training outcome results appearing in the
literature between 1990 and 2000.
Several aspects of the findings shown in Table 2.2 warrant comment. Specifically, we
note that:
(1) Individual differences in personality, organized around the FFM, show several
significant relations to job performance. In particular, the strongest, most pervasive
estimated true-score relation between personality and overall job performance across
occupational groups is found for conscientiousness (validities ranging from .12 to .31),
followed by extroversion (validities ranging from .09 to .16), and emotional stability
(.08 to .22). Meta-analytic findings for openness to experience indicate relatively small
validities for job performance (ranging from –.03 to .27 for openness to experience
and from –.01 to .33 for agreeableness). Recently, however, Barrick et al. (2000) have
reported substantially stronger predictive validity (r = .13) for agreeableness in jobs
that require high levels of social interaction. Taken together, these findings suggest that
individuals who report higher levels of conscientiousness, higher levels of extroversion,
and lower levels of emotional distress are likely to show higher levels of job performance.