APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW,19%,45 (3).

207-224

Personality and Work Behaviour: Exploring the

Linkages
Seymour Adler
Stevens Institute of Technology, USA

Une ttude du rapport personnalitt et conduites de travail requiert la prudence

dans la considkration des liaisons critiques dans les modtles thtoriques et dans
les plans de recherche utilists et la personnalitt et les construits de critbre
proposCs en thCorie et en recherche. La valeur de la considQation de ces
liaisons est illustrke par des exemples de la litttrature en pointe sur la
personnalitb et les conduites de travail.

The more productive study of the relationship of personality to work

behaviour requires thoughtful consideration of critical linkages in the
theoretical models and research designs used, and the personality and criterion
constructs incorporated in theory and research. The value of considering these
linkages is illustrated by examples from the emerging literature on personality
and work behaviour.

INTRODUCTION
Over the past decade, there has been an upsurge in interest in personality
variables among students of work behaviour. The past five years, in
particular, have seen the publication of a comprehensive book-length review
of the empirical literature (Furnham, 1992) and two comprehensive
meta-analytic studies of the relationship of personality to job performance
(Barrick & Mount, 1991; Ones, Mount, Barrick, & Hunter, 1994a; Tett,
Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991; Tett, Jackson, Rothstein, & Reddon, 1994).
Nonetheless, much contemporary personality research within our field
suffers from the lack of theoretical and methodological discipline that we
noted over a decade ago in our first analysis of this literature (Weiss & Adler,
1984).

Requests for reprints should be sent to Seymour Adler, Applied Psychology Program,
Stevens Institute of Technology, Castle Point, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA.

0 1996 International Association of Applied Psychology

208 ADLER

The objective of this paper is to stimulate the growing number of applied

psychology researchers interested in personality to consider more
thoughtfully critical linkages in the (a) theoretical models; (b) research
designs; (c) personality constructs; and (d) criterion constructs that they
employ to study the relationship of personality to work behaviour.

THEORETICAL MODELS
The Role of Personality
A systematic examination of personality and work behaviour should begin
with a theoretical model that explicitly defines the position of the personality
construct of interest. That position may be central or it may be peripheral to
the model being advanced, but in either case the position of personality must
be explicity defined (Weiss & Adler, 1984). Defining a central role for
personality in a model does not imply that the behaviour of interest is seen as
solely a function of personality. Rather, the key question is whether the
model would retain theoretical coherence if the personality construct were
removed. Korman’s (1970) theory of work motivation or Steele’s (1988)
theory of self-affirmation clearly place a personality construct, self-esteem,
in a central position. In contrast, Goal Setting Theory (Locke & Latham,
1990) recognises that, among other factors, self-esteem may affect the goals
that people set for themselves. Specific, challenging goals, in turn, affect task
motivation. Goal Setting Theory would remain a well-articulated model of
task motivation even if validation research supported no role whatsoever for
the personality variable. The role of self-esteem in the Goal Setting model,
while clearly articulated, can be described as peripheral to the model’s
conceptual integrity.
Moreover, given that good theories are self-correcting based on
accumulating empirical evidence, the position of the personality construct
may change over time. In the original statement of the Job Characteristics
Model (Hackman & Oldham, 1980), the personality construct of Growth
Need Strength was given a central position. The relationship between job
scope and job satisfication was hypothesised to be positive for those high in
Growth Need Strength and negative for those low in Growth Need Strength.
Subsequent research has demonstrated that the role of Growth Need
Strength in the Job Characteristics model is, in fact, peripheral; job scope
positively relates to job satisfaction both for those high and low in Growth
Need Strength, although the relationship is stronger for those high in
Growth Need Strength (e.g. Loher, Noe, Moeller, & Fitzgerald, 1985).
The issue is not that personality ought to have a particular position in any
given model of work behaviour. Rather, it is that as a basis for thinking
through how personality is linked to other constructs in their m.sdels,
 EXPLORING THE LINKAGES 209

researchers should at the very least define precisely what role-central or

peripheral-they are assigning to the personality construct of interest.

Theoretical Linkages
Once the personality construct has been assigned a specific position, the
hypothesised linkages between the personality construct and the other
constructs in the model can be articulated. Existing models have varied
considerably in regard to how clearly those linkages are spelled out. For
example, Brockner (1988), in developing a theory of behavioural plasticity,
clearly lays out the hypothesised mediating links between self-esteem on the
one hand and behavioural change on the other. Those low in self-esteem are
presumed to be socially insecure and as a consequence more sensitive to
socially mediated cues relevant to social approval. Thus, when those low in
self-esteem receive feedback from supervisors, or are on the receiving end of
persuasive communications from co-workers, they are more likely to attend
and be responsive to such messages. Subsequently, they are more likely to
use this information to guide their future behaviour in order to avoid the risk
of social disapproval. Those high in self-esteem would, on the other hand, be
more resistant to the influence of these informational cues.
In contrast to the specific linkages spelled out in the Behavioural
Plasticity model, it is still not clear how the personality variable measured by
the Least Preferred Co-worker scale, relations-orientation, is linked to
leader effectiveness under varying levels of situational favourableness in
Fiedler’s Contingency model (Fiedler, 1967), even some three decades after
the model first appeared. Similarly, recent meta-analysis (Barrick & Mount,
1991) has demonstrated a moderate but significant and generalisable
relationship between the personality trait of Conscientiousness on the one
hand and job performance on the other. However, it is not all clear how these
two constructs are behaviourally linked. Presumably, those high in
Conscientiousness are more attentive and diligent in performing work tasks
and the result is better overall job performance. Yet, alternative linkages
may account for the relationship between Conscientiousness and job
performance.
A different way of conceptualising the link between Conscientiousness
and performance was recently proposed and tested by Barrick, Mount, and
Strauss (1993). They hypothesised that those high in Conscientiousness are
mare likely to set performance goals for themselves. These goals, in turn,
trigger a greater investment of effort and, ultimately, more effective
peformance (Locke & Latham, 1990). A test of this path model in a sample
of salespeople demonstrated that the effect of Conscientiousness on sales
performance was indeed mediated through goal setting.
210 ADLER

One payoff from articulating such specific linkages in our models is

having more clearly defined hypotheses to test. For instance, the model
proposed by Barrick et al. (1993) would suggest that Conscientiousness is a
better predictor of performance in situations where workers can set their
own goals than in situations where performance goals are assigned.
Even in the practical context of selection testing, researchers should first
try to understand job requirements, presumably by conducting systematic
job analysis research, and then identify the behaviours and work tasks
through which specific personality constructs may ultimately impact on job
performance. The benefit of thinking through these linkages comes not just
in the form of better theory, but also in an increased likelihood of finding
validity for the personality tests being validated. Proof of this payoff comes
from a meta-analysis of research on personality predictors of job
performance. Confirmatory studies of articulated models that sought to test
hypothesised links between specific personality variables and job
performance yielded a corrected mean validity of 0.24. The corresponding
mean validity for exploratory studies (more properly called “fishing
expeditions”) was 0.04 (Tett et al., 1994).
To demonstrate the superiority of the thoughtful, confirmatory strategy
over the shotgun, exploratory strategy, Robertson and Kinder (1993) had
practitioners rate the likelihood that specific personality dimensions were
linked to specific dimensions of job performance. The researchers then
meta-analysed prior criterion-related validity research on the Occupational
Personality Questionnaire (OPQ). Not surprisingly, the average validity
across the earlier studies for those personality scales with hypothesised
linkages to specific criteria was 0.19, against an average of 0.13 for validity
coefficients where a personality-performance linkage was seen by
practitioners as less likely. For the particular traits judged most relevant to
particular criterion dimensions, average validities were around 0.30.
Dulewicz (1992) similarly analysed a data set consisting of correlations
between 30 personality dimension scores on the OPQ and supervisor ratings
of 40 performance competencies for a sample of 100 general managers.
Instead of blindly “fishing” through all possible validity coefficients, he
examined only the 57 specific linkages between particular traits and
particular competencies hypothesised a priori to be related. He found 62%
of the hypothesised correlations to be significant at the 0.05 alpha level, a
finding far above chance. Dulewicz (1995) reported a similarly consistent
pattern of confirmatory findings for hypothesised trait-performance
linkages using the 16PF personality inventory as a predictor of management
competencies. Tett et al. (1994, p.190) state the case well: “The benefit of
confirmatory over exploratory investigation derives from the greater
specificity of linking personality and job performance.”
 EXPLORING THE LINKAGES 21 1

RESEARCH DESIGN
The Limits of Bivariate Designs
The studies summarised in recent meta-analyses (Bamck & Mount, 1991;
Tett et al., 1991) are characterised by the use of a simple bivariate
correlational research design, with personality measures as predictors and
job performance measures as criteria. As a result of these meta-analyses we
now know that, on average, in confirmatory studies with highly reliable
predictor and criterion measures, we can expect a simple bivariate
correlation of about 0.24. Even so, given the relative independence of
personality predictors from cognitive ability measures (Day & Silverman,
1989), the addition of a relevant personality measure to a typical selection
battery may well significantly increase the battery’s overall predictive
accuracy and utility.
Nonetheless, the meta-analytic studies also confirm the relatively high
level of variance among observed bivariate correlations that is not due to the
sources of artifactual variance taken into account by meta-analysis. Even for
Conscientiousness, which as an individual trait has the highest average
corrected correlation with performance, 43% of the variance in correlations
across settings is due to variation in factors other than sampling error,
reliability, or restriction of range (Barrick & Mount, 1991). This stands in
sharp contrast with the findings for cognitive ability tests where typically
75-100% of the variance across studies is due to these statistical artifacts.
These meta-analytic findings suggest that substantial variation across
situations affects the strength of the relationship between personality traits
and criteria of interest. In order to better predict when personality will have
a relatively strong relationship with work criteria and when it will have a
relatively weak relationship, we need to define relevant situational
characteristics (recognising that personality may affect how situations are
construed) and how these characteristics interact with personality. In other
words, we need to expand beyond simple bivariate designs and consider
personality-situation interactions.

Interactions
The use of interactional designs may uncover a productive role for
personality constructs where prior research has yielded none. For example,
in several studies, the Type A personality pattern was found to have little or
no relationship to job performance (Tett et al., 1991). Lee, Early, and
Hanson (1988), however, looked at the interaction of Type A scores and job
variety (versus routineness) and found that for jobs with a high level of
variety, Type A was positively related to performance. For routine jobs,
though, Type A was negatively related to performance. Similarly, Lee,
212 ADLER

Ashford, and Bobko (1990) found that Type A score correlated strongly
with job performance only when employees worked under conditions of
perceived control over working conditions.
In examining personality-situation interactions we should avoid falling
victim to the unproductive “contest” that has plagued research in
Personality-Social Psychology for so long: What accounts for more criterion
variance-personality factors or situational factors? In reviewing the lessons
of this contest, Kenrick and Funder (1988) point out that the “winner” in any
given study is largely determined by artifacts of that study. A powerful
situational manipulation (e.g receipt of no incentive versus a large
incentive) combined with restricted variance on a personality trait of interest
(e.g. achievement motivation in a managerial sample) will assuredly result in
more criterion variance being explained by situational factors. Likewise,
strong situations (Mischel, 1977) in which prescribed behaviour is clearly
defined are likely to attenuate individual differences that reflect variation in
personality. In contrast, weak situations or prototypical situations are more
likely to produce significant personality effects. For example, Barrick and
Mount (1993) have demonstrated that Conscientiousness, Extroversion, and
Agreeableness are stronger predictors of job performance where employees
enjoy greater autonomy and fewer behavioural constraints.
The challenge is to design research in which situational and personality
variation is representative of some target environment (see Weiss & Adler,
1984, pp.20-24). To create representative designs, researchers have to
carefully think through the interplay between personality and situational
factors as it occurs in target “real world” contexts. Although theoretically
some personality variable might be expected to affect behaviour, many of
the “real world” contexts studied by applied psychologists in fact contain
genuine (not artifactual) restricted variation on the personality dimensions
of greatest relevance. As Schneider (1987) has noted, the differential
attraction to, selection in, and attrition of people within an organisation of
those whose traits match the culture of the organisation create homogeneity
on culturally important personality traits. Introverts are less likely to be
attracted to organisations with a highly sociable culture; even if attracted,
they are less likely to be hired; even if hired, they are less likely to survive. At
any given time, then, it is unlikely that introversion-extroversion will predict
job performance, given the restriction of range on this personality trait. This
homogenisation of the workforce within an organisation over time may well
be the reason for the meta-analytic finding that the average corrected
correlation between personality traits and performance criteria was 0.27 for
job applicant samples but only 0.12 for incumbent samples (Tett et al., 1994).
Personality-situation interactional designs need to represent the reality of
this homogenisation.
There are two other aspects of interactional design that can be rich
 EXPLORING THE LINKAGES 213

sources of theory and research on personality. One prospect involves the

analysis of interactions between two or more personality variables.
McClelland (see, e.g. McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982) has proposed a
personality profile entitled the Leader Motive Pattern in which effective
leaders are hypothesised to be high on dispositional Power Motive, high in
Activity Inhibition, and low in Affiliation Motivation. Several of the
standard inventories consistently yield interpretable second-order
personality factors (e.g. see Dulewicz, 1995). Lykken, McGue, Tellegen, and
Bouchard (1992) have recently developed a theory of what they term
“emergenesis”, arguing that important broad dispositions often emerge
from a particular configuration of more elemental traits.
Configural models comprising multiple personality traits may well have
theoretical and practical value in applied psychology. For example, one
could hypothesise that aggressiveness only contributes to sales effectiveness
if the salesperson is also sociable. Obviously more complex configurations
could be hypothesised, composed of more than two traits. Examination of
such personality configurations would clearly require large samples, but the
popularity of multiple-trait personality inventories should provide
opportunity for such configural research. Moreover, the emergenic
approach (Lykken et al., 1992) suggests that configural research may often
yield conceptually simpler models than those typically tested through three-,
four-, and five-way analysis of variance models which treat each personality
predictor independently.
A second aspect of interactional design that could enrich our research is a
consideration of what Magnusson and Endler (1977) term “dynamic
interactions”, and what Bandura (1989) calls “reciprocal determinism”,
namely, the complex mutual influence of personality and situations. This
mutual influence can occur in a number of ways. Personality can affect the
situations we choose to enter. For example, those high in Need Achievement
tend to pick more challenging assignments, or prefer tasks that provide
concrete feedback, or gravitate towards challenges that have intermediate
chances of success. Once in the particular situation, however, it may well be
situational factors that play the determining role in behavioural outcomes.
Alternatively, personality may affect the tendency to accept or resist
situational influence. This is precisely what has been posited and
demonstrated by Brockner (1988) in the Behavioural Plasticity model; those
low in self-esteem are more susceptible to social-mediated information than
those high in self-esteem. Staw and Boettger (1990) similarly suggest that
individual difference factors may affect the tendency to accept the work
situation as given or to take the initiative to revise the content of work. Once
situational demands are accepted, or revised in a particular way, situational
factors may then shape subsequent behaviour.
214 ADLER

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, mutual influence may occur

through long-term exposure to situations that shape personality. In a 10-year
longitudinalstudy, Kohn and Schooler (1982) demonstrated that the level of
repetitiveness of work that people performed affected their cognitive
flexibility. Similar findings are reported in a study by Semmer and
Schallberger on the influence of job demands on verbal intelligence
(Semmer & Schallberger, this issue). Situational influences on personality
were also noted in the sample of AT&T managers who were tracked over a
20-year period in the Management Progress Study (Howard & Bray 1988).
Over the course of time, for example, career success as an AT&T manager
was associated with increased impulsivity and decreased affability. We now
have the analytical tools that can help untangle the complex mutual
influences of personality, situation, and behaviour. What we need is the
creativity to develop such reciprocal interactive models and the initiative
(and stamina) to test them longitudinally.

PERSONALITY CONSTRUCTS
Understanding the Nomological Network
Historically, applied psychologists have taken a largely atheoretical
approach to the selection of personality variables incorporated in their
research and practice. Traits have often been included because of the
availability of convenient measures rather than with a full understanding of
the nomological networks within which these traits are embedded (for a
fuller discussion of this issue see Adler & Weiss, 1988;Weiss & Adler, 1984).
The widespread use of multiscale personality inventories meant that a single
test would yield the researcher a dozen or more trait scores simultaneously.
Not surprisingly, few relationships were found to be practically significant,
fewer still theoretically meaningful.
Today there seems to be a greater sensitivity to underlying theory in
studying personality effects. For example, integrity tests have been widely
used and discussed both in the scientific and practitioner literature. Yet this
growing literature largely treated integrity measures in isolation, ignoring
relevant psychological theory bearing on the issue of honesty and
trustworthiness. In fact, given that integrity test publishers carefully guarded
the way these tests were scored, it was difficult to know exactly what
construct was being measured by the test. Through recent meta-analytic
work by Ones, Viswesvaran, and Schmidt (1993) and construct validation
work by Collins and Schmidt (1993) and Ones, Schmidt, and Viswesvaran
(1994b) we now understand that the construct measured by integrity tests is
really dispositional Conscientiousness, or more precisely social
conscientiousness. Measures of dispositional Conscientiousness have an
average corrected correlation of 0.91 with integrity measures (Ones et al.,
1994b) and, further, the more an integrity test reflects the Conscientiousness
 EXPLORING THE LINKAGES 215

construct, the more valid the test for predicting dishonesty and other
antisocial behaviour at work (Ones et al., 1993, 1994b). Now that the
integrity construct is rooted in a known theoretical network, researchers and
practitioners are in a position to think through how and when integrity will
be associated with behavioural criteria of interest. The case of integrity
testing once again suggests that attention to theory in the use of personality
constructs has practical as well as theoretical payoffs.

Alternative Measurement Strategies

Giving attentional primacy to personality constructs and only secondarily to
measurement (operational definitions) of these constructs also opens up our
thinking to alternative ways of measuring target traits beyond self-report
inventories.
Mae1 and Hirsch (1993) have shown how theory-guided selection of
biodata items enhances both the meaningfulness and the validity of biodata
instruments. Accordingly, researchers have begun to develop and validate
biodata measures of the Big Five personality constructs (Tenopyr, 1994).
McAdams (1992) has successfully utilised open-ended self-descriptions in
place of inventories to measure target personality constructs. Mount,
Barrick, and Strauss (1994) demonstrated that supervisor and subordinate
ratings of a manager’s personality can significantly increase the variance in
managerial performance explained by the manager’s responses to a
traditional self-report personality inventory. The NEO-PI (see Costa, this
issue) has in fact long had two forms; one a self-report and the other to be
completed by someone else well acquainted with the target individual.
Finally, behavioural assessment methods have been used to measure
personality dimensions (Thornton, 1992) by inferring the extent to which
someone possesses a particular attribute from his or her behaviour in a
particular role-play situation. This approach assumes that trait-relevant
behaviours are sampled across a sufficient range of situations. As always,
these alternative measurement strategies are best used in combination,
triangulating the underlying construct to enhance measurement validity.

Construct Breadth
Another trend has also appeared in the literature; the use of narrowly
defined, situationally rooted personality constructs. For example, Blau
(1993) tested the relative strength of two measures of locus of control in
predicting different aspects of bank teller performance. H e found that the
more specific measure of work-oriented locus of control was a significant
predictor of performance, whereas the more general dispositional measure
was not. To some extent the increased use of the more situation-specific
216 ADLER

construct of self-efficacy (Gist & Mitchell, 1992), instead of the broader

dispositional construct of self-esteem, reflects this trend.
It may well be true, as Blau (1993) and others have argued, that these
more situationally rooted constructs have greater predictive power in the
specific situation to which they are applicable. Nevertheless it is crucial for
the development of broad, parsimonious models of personality and work
behaviour that we link-conceptually and empirically-these narrower
personality constructs back to the broad dispositions in which they are
rooted.
Interestingly, while research in organisational behaviour has increasingly
embraced the use of more narrowly defined constructs, the trend in
personality theory and research has been towards the consolidation of
specific traits into a relatively small number of more broadly defined
constructs. The best known of these models is the Big Five model (see Costa,
this issue). The model posits five broad dispositions: Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness, Surgency, Stability, and Openness. These broad
dispositions have been found to be stable among adults and predictive of
important work-related criteria (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Costa, this issue;
Goldberg, 1993).
At this point the Big Five and similar consolidated models essentially
represent proposed personality trait taxonomies, although Block (1995) has
recently cautioned personality psychologists against prematurely adopting
the Big Five as the definitive taxonomy. These taxonomies attempt to
describe the underlying dispositional structure of personality and help to
organise a confusing array of findings. The challenge now is to think through
the linkages between these broad dispositions and behaviour in order to
understand more fully what adaptive functions this personality structure
provides to people (Block, 1995, p.188). In one such attempt, McCrae and
Costa (1994) have proposed that personality affects an individual’s adaptive
behaviours both directly, by affecting perception and behaviour, and
indirectly, through its influence on the self-concept which in turn influences
behaviour (see Bandura, 1989, who also speaks of the agentic power of the
self-concept).
An alternative way to understand the function of the Big Five model is
through Evolutionary Personality Theory (Buss, 1991). This approach views
the Big Five as reflecting the fundamental traits that were instrumental for
human adaptation in our evolutionary past. Each of the Big Five was critical
in ensuring survival in the clan-centred, hunter-gatherer societies that
characterised most of our evolutionary history. Agreeableness promoted
cooperative behaviour; Conscientiousness promoted reliability and
dependability in task performance; Surgency reflects the importance of
dominance hierarchies in the social organisations in which our ancestors
lived; Stability was critical to survival in the face of adversity; and Openness
 EXPLORING THE LINKAGES 217

was required to solve newly emerging challenges to life. In part, the

evolutionary basis for the Big Five is supported by the relatively strong
heritability of these traits (Arvey & Bouchard, 1994). The evolutionary
approach may be particularly useful in helping us to think through the
linkages between these traits, on the one hand, and the adaptations called on
by life in work organisations, especially the changing adaptations required
over a career and over the organisation’s (or work unit’s) life-cycle.

CRITERION CONSTRUCTS
Job Performance
The criterion of choice in our field has always been job performance. The
literature on personality is no different. Yet, as we have seen, without
thinking through precisely how a particular trait ought to affect a particular
dimension of job performance, research in this area is not likely to be very
productive. Judging by the recent meta-analyses of this literature (Barrick &
Mount, 1991; Tett et al., 1991) personality has indeed not been a very good
predictor of job performance. In part this may be due to the way
performance is defined in organisations; personality-rooted stylistic
differences in on-the-job behaviour may not much affect the aggregated
quantity of output produced by an employee. However, these personality-
based differences may have a significant impact on perceptions held by an
employee’s supervisor concerning the employee’s job performance. The
linkages implied by this alternative model may account for why, on average,
personality variables are correlated more strongly with subjective appraisals
of job performance (average validity equals 0.26) than with objective
performance criteria (average validity of 0.14; Barrick & Mount, 1991).
Hogan (1991) has argued more generally that the primary mediating process
through which traits affect criteria is through the social perceptions of those
traits held by significant others and the consequences of these social
perceptions.
Moreover, there is some evidence that the nature of the personality-
performance relationship may change over the course of time, as job
performance is mastered and automated (Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989).
Helmreich, Swain, and Carsrud (1986) found that dispositional differences
in achievement motivation were unrelated to the performance of airline
reservationists during the first several months of their job tenure, but
became significant predictors of performance after this initial period was
over. In their research on skill acquisition, Kanfer and Ackerman (e.g. 1989)
have shown that early in the learning process performance is, largely
determined first by general mental aptitude and then by perceptual speed
218 ADLER

and accuracy. Only once the task is mastered might individual differences in
relevant personality traits correlate with individual differences in
performance.
A more analytical approach to the study of personality and job
performance also requires specifying exactly which aspects of job
performance are likely to be affected by personality. Blau (1993)
demonstrated that the same trait may be related very differently to different
facets of job performance. In his study of a sample of bank tellers, Blau
found that external locus of control was positively related to compliant
performance, namely the execution of prescribed job responsibilities, but
negatively correlated with the extent to which tellers took the initiative for
self-development. Along the same lines, Motowidlo and Van Scotter (1994)
found that six personality variables measured on the US Armed Services
Assessment of Background and Life Experience inventory were
significantly more predictive of contextual job performance (e.g.
cooperation and helpfulness towards other team members, enthusiasm in
tackling difficult assignments, voluntarism) than of more traditional
dimensions of task performance (e.g. operating equipment, maintenance,
administrative duties).
One aspect of job performance that has received increasing attention in
both the practitioner and scientific literatures is service quality. Schneider
(e.g. Schneider & Bowen, 1995) has emphasised that, unlike the creation of a
tangible product, the creation of a service often occurs at the very moment of
employee-customer contact (e.g. having a haircut or placing a collect call).
Consequently, service quality may be more affected than is product
manufacture by stylistically based variation in employee behaviour. There is
evidence, for example, that individual differences in employee mood affect
both service performance (e.g. Rafaeli & Sutton, 1990) and the degree to
which an employee is helpful to customers beyond formal role requirements
(Isen & Baron, 1991).
Similarly, Organ (1994) examined the accumulating research on
personality predictors of Organisational Citizenship Behaviour, which
reflects performance on behalf of the organisation beyond formal
productivity requirements. He found that Organisational Citizenship
Behaviour was only moderately predicted by Conscientiousness, and not at
all by other personality variables.
These disappointing findings for extra-role performance criteria should
not be surprising. As in the case of traditional performance criteria (e.g.
Dulewicz, 1992; Robinson & Kinder, 1993), productive research here
requires an analysis of precisely how different aspects of extra-role
performance might be affected by specific traits, and the behavioural
linkages that mediate these two sets of factors. There is little hope that
 EXPLORING THE LINKAGES 219

through guesswork and wishful thinking alone, meaningful relationships will

be discovered.

Alternative Criteria
Attitudes. Along with the general increase in attention to personality
variables in organisational research is a more serious consideration of
personality-sensitive criteria other than job performance. Measures of work
attitudes in particular are increasingly used as criteria in personality
research. Less than a decade ago, Staw, Bell, and Clausen (1986, p.57) could
write that “the field is no longer as interested in what the individual brings to
the work setting in terms of behavioral tendencies, traits, and personality as
in how the organization can externally prod the individual to evoke more
positive job attitudes and behavior.” Even more recently, Brief, Burke,
George, Robinson, and Webster (1989) could entitle an article: “Should
negative affectivity remain an unmeasured variable in the study of job
stress?”.
By now, there is clear evidence of significant consistency in people’s work
attitudes over long periods of time and despite movement across
organisations and positions; that these stable attitudes have in part a genetic
basis; and that dispositional differences in positive and negative affectivity
(which presumably are in large measure genetically based) underlie much of
this attitudinal consistency (see Judge, 1992, for a review of these findings).
Research by Judge (e.g. Judge & Watanabe, 1995) suggests that
dispositional affectivity underlies the links between job satisfaction and
turnover and between job satisfaction and life satisfaction.
Recently, Hershberger, Lichtenstein, and Knox (1994) have extended
this line of research to show that genetically rooted dispositions influence
work-related perceptions. Their analysis of data from twins showed that
perceived organisational climate is significantly influenced by genetically
based dispositional differences. Future research is likely to add to our
understanding of the linkages between genetically based dispositions, and
work-related perceptions, affect, and attitudes.
As our field turns to examine the effects of personality on criteria other
than performance, it is important to remember the lessons of the
personality-situation controversy mentioned earlier (Kenrick & Funder,
1988). Demonstration of a significant dispositional influence on work
attitudes or perceptions does not mean that interventions to change the
work situation will not also-and perhaps even more strongly-affect those
attitudes or perceptions (Davis-Blake & Pfeffer, 1989).The argument over
personality or situation is a pseudoargument that wastes our attentional
resources and confuses the organisational decision-makers we are trying to
help.
220 ADLER

Macro-organisational Criteria
Staw and Sutton (1992) have recently proposed an approach to the study of
organisations that they term “macro-organisational psychology”. This
approach (1992, p.352) uses “states and traits that reside within individuals
as explanations of collective behaviors.” Macro-organisational psychology
would involve studying the impact of individual-level personality
dispositions on macro-level criteria such as organisational structure,
formalism, adaptability, and effectiveness.
At first glance this approach seems to smack of the ecological fallacy that
so dogged earlier work, especially in the psychodynamic tradition;
attributing to large social entities the psychological characteristics (e.g.
neuroticism) of individuals (e.g. Kets de Vries & Miller, 1985)). However,
recent evidence supports the argument that this perspective should be
treated seriously.
Miller and Droge (1986) studied 93 firms representing a cross-section of
industries in Quebec. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of each firm
completed a measure of Need Achievement. Other senior members of the
firm completed measures of three dimensions of organisational structure
that were hypothesised, on the basis of a well-developed nomological
network, to relate to Need Achievement: integration, formalisation, and
centralisation. The authors found that CEO Need Achievement significantly
correlated with all three structural variables. Firm size and age generally
moderated these relationships; CEO personality most affected
organisational structure in smaller, newer firms.
More recently, Miner, Smith, and Bracker (1994) used the Miner
Sentence Completion Scale to measure five motivational dispositions (e.g.
self-achievement, personal innovation) in a sample of entrepreneurs.
Following-up five years later, the researchers found that four of the five
dispositions significantly predicted the likelihood that the entrepreneur’s
firm would show relatively rapid growth.
Staw and Sutton (1992) propose a number of mechanisms whereby
individual-level personality traits ultimately link to organisational-level
criteria. Powerful founders or leaders, as in the study by Miller and Droge
(1986), may structure the organisation’s business practices or design to suit
their personality. Or, as perhaps occurred in the entrepreneurial firms
studied by Miner et al. (1994), strategic decisions made by organisational
leaders4ecisions that reflect in part the influence of the leader’s
personality-shape the macro-level behaviour and performance of the
organisation as a whole. The standards used by the organisation to select
new members, and especially new members filling positions of great
visibility and/or influence, may be affected by the personality of those
establishing these standards. The personality-influenced behaviour of those
 EXPLORING THE LINKAGES 221

that represent an organisation in transactions with other organisations may

affect the reactions of these other organisations towards the target
organisation. These and other mechanisms that link individual personality
to macro-level criteria do not necessarily imply that organisations have
“personalities”. The approach advanced by Staw and Sutton (1992, p.377)
does suggest, however, that personality theory may provide some
“underlying rationale or missing mechanisms to explain the behavior of
organizations” and generate creative, testable hypotheses.

CONCLUSION
It seems appropriate, in concluding this paper, to remind ourselves yet again
of Lewin’s maxim that “there is nothing so practical as a good theory.”
Practicality, from the perspective of theory and research in applied
psychology, does not only mean making concrete contributions to
organisational practice. It also means investing our resources (expertise,
time, effort, research funds, journal space) in research that is guided by, and
contributes to, solid, generalisable theory-based thinking. Research in this
area will be advanced primarily by researchers who conscientiously and
carefully think through the potential mediating linkages between
personality consfrucfs(not personality measures) on the one hand and target
criterion constructs on the other. Our explanatory models can be enriched
by drawing on the elaborated nomological networks in which many
personality constructs exist after decades of systematic research. Moreover,
within the personality literature, there is increasing emphasis on the
biological, genetic, and developmental roots of personality which can
further enhance our attempts to study personality and work behaviour.
Correspondingly, work behaviour represents a significant life arena in
which to test personality models that have been built on research in clinical,
counselling, and social-psychologicallaboratory settings. In the extensive
literature on self-monitoring (Gangstead & Snyder, 1985), for example, until
very recently there has been only a handful of studies conducted in
organisational contexts. Similarly,it is only recently that research has begun
to emerge on industriaYorganisational use of the NEO-PI measure of the
Big Five (see Costa, this issue).
Finally, using dispositions as a starting point, we are more likely to find
behavioural coherence across work and nonwork settings. Although the
specific situational factors that affect satisfaction, adjustment, and well-
being may differ between these two settings, the dispositionally based
processes that affect these outcomes are likely to be the same. Ultimately,
the study of personality and work behaviour must be rooted in, and
contribute to, the more general psychology of personality and human
behaviour.
Manuscript received March 1995
Revised manuscript received December 1995
222 ADLER

REFERENCES
Adler, S., & Weiss, H.M. (1988). Recent developments in the study of personality and
organizational behavior. In C.L. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 3,307-329.
Arvey, R.D., & Bouchard, T.J. (1994). Genetics, twins, and organizational behavior. In B.M.
Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 16.47-82.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American fsychologist, 44,
1175-1184.
Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance. Personnel Psychology, 44.1-26.
Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationship between
the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
78. 111-118.
Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K., & Straws, J.P. (1993). Conscientiousness and peformance of
sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal setting. Journal of Applied
PSyChOlOgy, 78,715-722.
Blau, G. (1993). Testing the relationship of locus of control to different performance
dimensions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66,125-138.
Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description.
Psychological Bulletin, 117,187-215.
Brief, A.P., Burke, M.J., George, J.M., Robinson, B., & Webster, J. (1988). Should negative
affectivity remain an unmeasured variable in the study of job stress? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 73,193-198.
Brockner, J. (1988). Self-esteem at work. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Buss, D.M. (1991). Evolutionary personality psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 42,
459491.
Collins, J.M., & Schmidt, F.L. (1993). Personality, integrity, and white collar crime: A
construct validity study. Personnel Psychology, 46,295-312.
Costa, P.T. (this issue). Work and personality: Use of the NEO-PI-R in industriaV
organisational psychology. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 45.
Davis-Blake, A,, & Pfeffer, J. (1989). Just a mirage: The search for dispositional effects in
organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 14,385400.
Day, D.A., & Silverman. S.B. (1989). Personality and job performance: Evidence of
incremental validity. Personnel Psychology, 42,25-36.
Dulewicz, V . (1992). Assessment of management competencies by personality
questionnaires. Selection and Development Review, 8, 1 4
Dulewicz, V. (1995). A validation of Belbin’s team roles from the 16PF and OPQ using
bosses’ ratings of competence. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 68,
81-99.
Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A theory of leadership eflectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Furnham, A. (1992). Personality at work. London: Routledge.
Gangstead, S., & Snyder, M. (1985). “To carve nature at its joints”: On the existence of
discrete classes in personality. Psychological Review, 92, 3-26.
Gist, M.E., & Mitchell, J.R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants
and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17.183-211.
Goldberg, L.R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American
Psychologist, 48.26-34.
Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Helrnreich, R.L., Swain, L.L., & Carsrud, A.L. (1986). The honeymoon effect in job
performance: Temporal increases in the predictive power of achievement motivation.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 185-188.
Hershberger, S.L., Lichtenstein, P., & Knox, S.S. (1994). Genetic and environmental influ-
ences on perceptions of organizational climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,2433.
 EXPLORING THE LINKAGES 223
Hogan, R.J. (1991). Personality and personality measurement. In M.D. Dunnette & L.M.
Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial & organizational psychology (2nd Edn.. Vol. 2,
pp.873-919). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Howard, A., & Bray, D.W. (1988). Manageriallives in transition. New York: Guilford Press.
Isen, A.M., & Baron, R.A. (1991). Positive affect as a factor in organizational behavior. In
L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 13,pp.1-53).
Greenwich C T JAI Press.
Judge, T.A. (1992). The dispositional perspective in human resources research. Research in
Personnel and Human Resources Management, 10,31-72.
Judge, T.A., & Watanabe, S. (1995). Is the past prologue?: A test of Ghiselli's hobo
syndrome. Journal of Management, 21,211-229.
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P.L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative
aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. JournalofApplied Psychology,
74,657-690.
Kenrick, D.J., & Funder. D.C. (1988). Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the
person-situation debate. American Psychologist, 43.23-34.
Kets de Vries, M.F.R., & Miller, D. (1985). Narcissism and leadership: An object relationship
perspective. Human Relarions, 38,583-601.
Kohn, M.L., & Schooler, C. (1982). Job conditions and personality: A longitudinal
assessment of their reciprocal effects. American JOUrMl of Sociology, 87, 1257-1286.
Korman, A.K. (1970). Toward a hypothesis of work behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 54,3141.
Lee, C., Ashford, S.J., & Bobko, P. (1990). Interactive effects of "Type A" behavior and
perceived control on worker performance, job satisfaction, and somatic complaints.
Academy of Managemen?JOUrMl, 33.870481.
Lee, C., Early, P.C., & Hanson, L.A. (1988). Are Type A's better performers? Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 9,263-269.
Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task-performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Loher, B.T., Noe, R.A., Moeller, N.L.. & Fitzgerald, M.P. (1985). A meta-analysis of the
relationship of job characteristics to job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology. 70,
280-289.
Lykken, D.T., McGue, M., Tellegen, A,, & Bouchard, T.J. (1992). Emergenesis: Genetic
traits that may not run in families. American Psychologist, 47. 1565-1577.
Mael, F.A., & Hirsch, A.C. (1993). Rainforest empiricism and quasi-rationality: Two
approaches to objective biodata. Personnel Psychology, 46.719-738.
Magnusson, D., & Endler, N.S. (1977). Interactional psychology: Present status and future
prospects. In D. Magnusson & N.S. Endler (Eds.), Personality a? ?hecrossroads (pp.3-37).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
McAdams, D.P. (1992). Unity and purpose in human lives: The emergence of identity as a life
story. In R.A. Zucker, A.I. Rabin, J. Aranoff, & S.J. Frank (Eds.), Personaliry structure in
the life course (pp.323-375). New York: Springer.
McClelland, D.C.. & Boyatzis. R.E. (1982). The leadership motive pattern and long-term
success in management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67,737-743.
McRae, R.R., & Costa, P.J. (1994). A trait perspective on the description and explanarion of
behavior. Paper presented at the Seventh European Conference on Personality, Madrid,
Spain.
Miller, D., & Droge, C. (1986). Psychological and traditional determinants of structure.
Administrative Science Quarterly. 31.539-560.
Miner, J.B., Smith, N.R., & Bracker, J.S. (1994). Role of entrepreneurial task motivation in
the growth of technologically innovative firms: Interpretations from follow-up data. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 79,627-630.
224 ADLER

Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N.S. Endler
(Eds.), Personality at the crossroads (pp.333-352), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Inc.
Motowidlo, S.J., & Van Scotter, J.R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be
distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,475480.
Mount, M.K., Barrick, M.R., & Strauss, J.P. (1994). Validity of observer ratings of the Big
Five personality factors. JournaI of Applied Psychology, 79,272-280.
Ones, D.S., Mount, M.K., Barrick, M.R., & Hunter, J.E. (1994a). Personality and job
performance: A critique of the Tett, Jackson, and Rothstein (1991) meta-analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 47,147-156.
Ones, D.S., Schmidt, F.L., & Viswesvaran, C. (1994b). Correlates ofpre-employment integriry
tests. Paper presented at the 23rd International Congress of Applied Psychology, Madrid,
Spain.
Ones, D.S., Viswesvaran, C.. & Schmidt, F.L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of
integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,679-703.
Organ, D.W. (1994). Personality and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of
Management, 20,465478.
Rafaeli, A,, & Sutton, R.I. (1990). Busy stores and demandingcustomers: How do they affect
the display of positive emotion? Academy of Management J o u ~ M ~33,623-637.
,
Robertson, I.T.. & Kinder, A. (1993). Personality and job competencies: The criterion-
related validity of some personality variables. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
PSyChOlOgy, 66,225-244.
Schneider, B.J. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 14,437453.
Schneider, B., & Bowen, D.E. (1995). Winning the service game. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Semmer, N., & Schallberger, U. (this issue). Selection, socialisation, and mutual adaptation:
Resolving discrepancies between people at work. Applied Psychology: A n International
Review, 45.
Staw, B.M., Bell, N.E., & Clausen, J.A. (1986). The dispositional approach tojob attitudes: A
lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 5677.
Staw, B.M., & Boettger, R.D. (1990). Task revision: A neglected form of work performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 33,534-559.
Staw, B.M., & Sutton, R.I. (1992). Macro organizational psychology. In J.K. Murnighan
(Ed.), Socialpsychology in organizations (pp.35&384). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Steele, C.M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In
L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimentalsocialpsychology (Vol. 21, pp.261-302). NY:
Academic Press.
Tenopyr, M.L. (1994). Big Five, structural modeling, and item response theory. In G.S.
Stokes, M.D. Mumford, & W.A. Owens (Eds.), Biodata handbook (pp.519-533). Palo Alto,
C A Consulting Psychologists Press Inc.
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.
Thornton, G.C. (1992). Assessment centers in human resource management. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Weiss. H.M., & Adler, S. (1984). Personality and organizational behavior. In B.M. Staw &
L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 6, pp.1-50). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.