Personality and Individual Differences 184 (2022) 111216

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Enabling and burdening: The double-edged sword of conscientiousness

Fang Liu , Wanjing Qin , Xiaoyan Liu , Jinxin Li , Lijun Sun *
School of Management, Guangzhou University, No. 230 Wai Huan Xi Road, Guangzhou Higher Education Mega Center, Guangzhou 510006, People's Republic of China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Drawing upon conservation of resource theory, we identify a bright side as well as a potential dark side of
Conscientiousness conscientiousness, and thus regard conscientiousness as a mixed blessing. Analysis of data gathered across two
General self-efficacy waves from 203 employees in China showed that, although conscientiousness enhanced self-efficacy, which in
Performance pressure
turn promoted thriving at work, it also increased performance pressure, which in turn decreased thriving at
Thriving at work
work. Our theory and results provide meaningful insights into why conscientiousness increases versus inhibits
thriving at work.

1. Introduction (2005), p. 539) noted, “thriving is not cultivated simply by decreasing

As a relatively stable trait, conscientiousness describes the degree to
which individuals are orderly, planful, self-controlled, responsible to
others, diligent, achievement-orientated, and rule abiding (McCrae &
John, 1992). Previous studies have predominantly shown evidence of
positive effects of conscientiousness in the workplace, including more
flourishing at work and organizational proactive behavior (e.g., Tu, Lu,
Wang, & Liu, 2020), higher self-efficacy and more learning behavior (e.
g., Lee & Klein, 2002; Martocchio & Judge, 1997), higher workaholism
(i.e., work involvement, drive, and enjoyment) (e.g., Andreassen, Het­
land, & Pallesen, 2010), less likely getting ostracized (e.g., Rudert,
Keller, Hales, Walker, & Greifeneder, 2020), more OCB, higher LMX
quality, and greater job satisfaction (e.g., Lapierre & Hackett, 2007), and
better job performance (e.g., Dudley, Orvis, Lebiecki, & Cortina, 2006).
Only a few studies have focused on negative effects of conscientiousness,
including lower life satisfaction (e.g., Boyce, Wood, & Brown, 2010) and
greater stress (e.g., Lin, Ma, Wang, & Wang, 2015). However, we still
know very little about how conscientiousness leads to negative
outcomes.
Thriving at work (TAW), is a psychological state composed of “a
sense of learning (greater understanding and knowledge) and a sense of
vitality (aliveness)” (Spreitzer, Sutcliffe, Dutton, Sonenshein, & Grant,
2005, p. 537). The positive effects of available resources on TAW have
already been investigated (e.g., Niessen, Sonnentag, & Sach, 2012;
Spreitzer et al., 2005). However, the role of resource loss in TAW, for
example, job stressors including performance pressure, has been largely
neglected (Prem, Ohly, Kubicek, & Korunka, 2017). As Spreitzer et al.
stressors”, and resource loss may negatively affect TAW. Consequently,
drawing on conservation of resources (COR) theory, we focus on both
roles of resource gain and loss to explore how conscientiousness pro­
motes versus inhibits TAW.
1.1. The double-edged sword of conscientiousness on thriving at work
In line with COR theory (Halbesleben, Neveu, Paustian-Underdahl, &
Westman, 2014; Hobfoll, 1989), resources denote things that can be
beneficial for employees to achieve their goals, including objects (e.g.,
office supplies, telephone, computer), individual characteristics (e.g.,
general self-efficacy, GSE), conditions (e.g., promotion), and various
energies (e.g., time, physical, emotional energy). COR theory suggests
that employees make great efforts to build, acquire, hold, and defend
resources.
Following Spreitzer et al. (2005), as a positive and desirable psy­
chological state, TAW is described as a feeling of both vitality and
learning. Vitality entails a positive feeling that one has energy available
and feels “alive”. Learning represents a sense that one is acquiring, and
can apply valuable knowledge and skills to enhance capability and
confidence. Vitality and learning capture the affective and cognitive
essence of the psychological experience of personal growth,
respectively.
Based on COR theory, we argue that trait conscientiousness implies
both enabling and burdening process for TAW. The enabling process
represents that trait conscientiousness increases GSE which can be
regarded as a resource gain that might enable one to achieve goals, and

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: liufang@gzhu.edu.cn (F. Liu), slijun@gzhu.edu.cn (L. Sun).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111216
Received 19 April 2021; Received in revised form 9 August 2021; Accepted 15 August 2021
Available online 26 August 2021
0191-8869/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. Liu et al. Personality and Individual Differences 184 (2022) 111216

thus might promote TAW. Instead, the burdening process represents that
trait conscientiousness increases performance pressure which can be
viewed as a resource loss that might drain one's too much time and
energy, and thus might inhibit TAW.
1.2. Enabling process of conscientiousness: the mediating role of GSE
are likely to experience TAW.
In sum, as a resource gain or an enabling process, GSE originated
from conscientiousness would positively influence employees' experi­
ence of both vitality and learning.
Hypothesis 1. Conscientiousness positively influences GSE, which in
turn positively influences TAW.

As a motivational trait, GSE is first posited to be an enabling mech­

1.3. Burdening process of conscientiousness: the mediating role of
anism through which conscientiousness associates with TAW. As a
performance pressure
relatively stable and individually different construct, GSE denotes the
“individuals' perception of their ability to perform across a variety of
We further posit performance pressure to be a burdening mechanism
different situations” (Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998, p. 170), and can be
through which conscientiousness associates with TAW. Performance
conceived as a personal resource (Parker, Jimmieson, & Johnson, 2013).
pressure denotes “a strong commitment to the goal in concert with the
As a general trait, conscientiousness incorporates overall motivational
desirability of the goal would tend to produce a discomforting percep­
tendencies (Martocchio & Judge, 1997) and associates with all three
tion of the necessity for high performance” (Eisenberger & Aselage,
workaholism components (i.e., work involvement, drive, and enjoy­
2009, p. 96).
ment) (Andreassen et al., 2010). The features of conscientiousness (i.e.,
As noted earlier, conscientious employees are achievement-oriented
achievement oriented, responsible, hardworking, persevering, self-
(McCrae & John, 1992). They likely demonstrate a high need for
disciplined, organized, and compliant with rules; McCrae & John,
personnel achievement (Barrick et al., 1993), especially for high per­
1992) would increase GSE, representing a resource gain or an enabling
formance. They also may have unrealistically high expectations for
process of conscientiousness. Specifically, in order to obtain their
themselves (Stoeber, Otto, & Dalbert, 2009). Accordingly, they tend to
desired performance, conscientious employees typically better prepare
spend considerable time and maintain high levels of effort at work to
for their work demands (Tay, Ang, & Van Dyne, 2006). They typically
achieve high performance (Andreassen et al., 2010). Although consci­
are dedicated to their goals, develop detailed plans, spend much time
entiousness could relate positively to GSE through effort, it could also
working hard (Fu, Richards, & Jones, 2009), and are “willing to put
relate positively to performance pressure through effort. Effort at work
forth the level of effort needed to accomplish goals” (Witt & Ferris, 2003,
likely makes them more vulnerable to feel pressure, tension, or frus­
p. 810). They also consider difficulties and problems in pursuing goals as
tration to achieve high performance (Cianci, Klein, & Seijts, 2010).
challenges to be solved (Barrick, Mount, & Strauss, 1993). To approach
Accordingly, they likely feel great pressure to meet the challenges that
challenges, they are likely to take part in training programs conscien­
are given to them (Cianci et al., 2010) and report great stress from work
tiously and transfer their knowledge and skills to those challenges
(Tyssen et al., 2009).
(Yamkovenko & Holton, 2010). Goal attainment provides them with
In turn, performance pressure could decrease employees' experience
positive feedback and mastery experiences (Bakker, 2011), thereby
of both vitality and learning, that is, TAW. According to COR theory, as a
promoting their GSE. Training and learning also can elicit positive
burdening process, performance pressure could result in resource loss or
changes in GSE (Eden & Aviram, 1993). Consequently, conscientious
the depletion of time and energy, hindering the development of TAW.
employees are likely to believe in their capabilities to perform across a
Employees are more likely to view negative feedback as a threat
variety of situations. Previous research supported this notion that
when they deal with performance pressure or pursue high performance
conscientiousness is positively associated with GSE (e.g., Ebstrup, Eplov,
and as a challenge when they are devoted to learning (Cianci et al.,
Pisinger, & Jørgensen, 2011; Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2002).
2010). Accordingly, as a stressful event, performance pressure or
In turn, GSE could enhance employees' experience of both vitality
achieving high performance is more likely to be assessed as a threat
and learning, that is, TAW. TAW is a result of the resources and be­
which relates to high levels of stress, more negative emotions (e.g.,
haviors of individuals and organizations (Spreitzer et al., 2005). We
tension/anxiety), and less positive emotions (Skinner & Brewer, 2002),
argue that GSE, as a personal resource (Parker et al., 2013) arising from
for example, a source of failure (e.g., Cianci et al., 2010). Increased
conscientiousness, further influences the pool of resources that em­
stress, tension, or anxiety likely associate with negative or off-task
ployees have available (Halbesleben et al., 2014), aiding the develop­
thoughts, for example, self-doubt, worries, and anticipation of punish­
ment of TAW (Spreitzer et al., 2005). Furthermore, GSE also positively
ment or loss of status (Cianci et al., 2010), that may drain employees'
relates to all three workaholism components (i.e., work involvement,
time and energy. Thus, due to the resource loss resulted from perfor­
drive, and enjoyment) (Burke, Matthiesen, & Pallesen, 2006), enables
mance pressure, employees may be difficult to focus behaviors and
employees to respond to challenges actively, purposefully, and confi­
attention on tasks and responsibilities, explore opportunities in new
dently (Luszczynska, Gutiérrez-Doña, & Schwarzer, 2005), and thus
directions, and heedfully relate to the social/relational environment. In
they likely experience a high level of learning and vitality (Spreitzer
other words, performance pressure hinders the development of the
et al., 2005). GSE is such a resource serving a motivational and enabling
above three types of agentic behaviors as the engine of TAW (Spreitzer
function to facilitate TAW. That is, GSE provides employees with more
et al., 2005). At last, performance pressure leads to low learning
resources to invest toward TAW.
orientation and lack of motivation and energy (i.e., low vitality).
Additionally, employees with high GSE tend to engage in agentic
In sum, as a resource loss or a burdening process, performance
behaviors, including task focus, exploration, and heedful relating, which
pressure originated from conscientiousness would negatively influence
are identified as sources of TAW (Spreitzer et al., 2005). Specifically,
employees' experience of both vitality and learning.
employees with high GSE are likely to perceive that they have the
required skills and resources to focus on tasks and successfully complete Hypothesis 2. Conscientiousness positively influences performance
tasks across a variety of different situations (Chen, Gully, Whiteman, & pressure, which in turn negatively influences TAW.
Kilcullen, 2000). They are also likely to fulfill tasks with new ways, deal
with problems from new perspectives, and keep experimenting and 2. Method
learning. Moreover, they tend to relate more heedfully with others,
because GSE can prompt employees to engage in organizational citi­ 2.1. Sample and procedures
zenship behavior (Beauregard, 2012), share their ideas, and further
comprehend the interrelatedness of their tasks. Through engaging in We initially invited a sample of 341 full-time employees in China
task focus, exploration, and heedful relating, employees with high GSE through the authors' professional networks. We collected data through

2
F. Liu et al.
an online survey system. We sent participants all the survey links,
promised them the voluntariness of the surveys, and offered them an
overview of this research (i.e., a two-wave organizational behavior
study) via WeChat. To ensure confidentiality, we adopted identification
codes to match their survey responses across the two waves. At Time 1,
participants completed measures of conscientiousness, self-efficacy, and
performance pressure. At Time 2 (separated by two weeks), participants
reported TAW. We paid 5 Yuan to respondents for each survey.
After matching the two waves of surveys, we gained a final sample of
203 employees, and thus a response rate of 59.53%. They are primarily
identified as female (64%), averaged 26.2 years of age (SD = 5.89),
15.49 years of education (SD = 1.57), and 2.46 years of organizational
tenure (SD = 2.63). They worked full time in a variety of industries
(information transmission, software and information technology,
28.1%; education, 18.7%; real estate, 9.9%; wholesale and retail trade,
8.4%; manufacturing, 7.9%; others, 27%).
2.2. Measures
We translated all measures from English into Mandarin Chinese
through translation- back translation procedure recommended by Bri­
slin (1986). We adopted a five-point Likert scale ranging from “1 =
strongly disagree” to “5 = strongly agree” for all measures.
2.2.1. Conscientiousness
We measured conscientiousness with a four-item scale developed by
Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, and Lucas (2006). Sample items include “Get
chores done right away” and “Like order” (a = 0.72).
2.2.2. GSE
We used Judge, Erez, Bono, and Thoresen (2003)’s four-item scale to
measure self-efficacy. A sample item is “I complete tasks successfully” (a
= 0.80).
2.2.3. Performance pressure
We used Mitchell, Baer, Ambrose, Folger, and Palmer (2018)’s four-
item scale to measure performance pressure. A sample item is “I feel
tremendous pressure to produce results” (a = 0.85).
2.2.4. TAW
We measured TAW with Porath, Spreitzer, Gibson, and Garnett
(2012)’s eleven-item scale. TAW has two sub-dimensions—vitality (e.g.,
“I feel alive and vital”) and learning (e.g., “I continue to learn more and
more as time goes by”). As our theorizing did not distinguish the two
different types of TAW and they were highly correlated (r = 0.75, p <
.001), we used the average score to form an overall composite of TAW (a
= 0.95).
Control variables. To avoid possible confounding effects, we
controlled for gender (1 = male, 2 = female), age, and education
(measured in years) in all the analyses.
2.3. Analytical strategies
We adopted Model 4 in Hayes' (2017) PROCESS SPSS macro, which
enabled us to examine the mediating roles of GSE and performance
pressure simultaneously and estimate the indirect effect (ab) with a
bootstrap method to attain confidence intervals (CIs). We utilized 5000
bootstrap estimates to construct 95% bias-corrected CIs in all the
analyses.
2.4. Ethical considerations
The study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee. All
participants provided written informed consent before conducting the
survey.
3
Personality and Individual Differences 184 (2022) 111216
3. Results
3.1. Preliminary analysis
Reported in Table 1 are descriptive statistics as well as correlations.
We further conducted confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) to
demonstrate our four key variables (i.e., conscientiousness, GSE, per­
formance pressure, and TAW) gratifying discriminant validity. Based on
prior studies (e.g., Qin, Chen, Yam, Huang, & Ju, 2020), we got two
parcels for TAW by adopting dimensional scores. Reported in Table 2 are
the CFAs results which showed that the hypothesized four-factor model
(χ2 (71) = 139.15; CFI = 0.94, NNFI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR =
0.07) had a better fit than any other models.
3.2. Hypothesis testing
As shown in Table 3, both GSE (В = 0.499, SE = 0.056, t = 8.987, p =
.000) and performance pressure (В = 0.348, SE = 0.077, t = 4.514, p =
.000) were significantly predicted by conscientiousness. When incor­
porating both GSE and performance pressure into the model (TAW as the
dependent variable), GSE had a positive effect on TAW (В = 0.396, SE =
0.093, t = 4.281, p = .000) while performance pressure had a negative
effect on TAW (В = − 0.217, SE = 0.067, t = − 3.259, p = .001). The
results also showed that, after putting these two mediators into the
model, conscientiousness had no significant effect on TAW. We further
calculated the indirect effects of conscientiousness on TAW through GSE
and performance pressure. The results suggested that GSE (estimate of
indirect effect = 0.198, SE = 0.057, p < .05, 95% bootstrap CI = [0.099.
0.320]) and performance pressure (estimate of indirect effect =
− 0.0761, SE = 0.032, p < .05, 95% bootstrap CI = [− 0.146, − 0.024])
mediated the conscientiousness-TAW relationship, respectively,
providing support for the dual-path mediation model. Therefore, GSE
and performance pressure fully mediated the conscientiousness-TAW
relationship. Hence, both two hypotheses were supported. Fig. 1 de­
picts the results in a whole path model.
4. Discussion
Across a two-wave field study in China, we provided support for our
argument that conscientiousness has mixed effects on TAW. We found
that conscientiousness not only led to GSE, which in turn promoted
TAW; but also resulted in performance pressure, which in turn inhibited
TAW.
4.1. Theoretical implications
First, this study contributes to the conscientiousness literature by
offering a richer picture of the negative and positive effects that trait
conscientiousness has on TAW. As noted earlier, past studies have pri­
marily focused on the positive outcomes of trait conscientiousness (e.g.,
Martocchio & Judge, 1997; Rudert et al., 2020; Tu et al., 2020).
Meanwhile, a few studies have also examining the negative outcomes of
trait conscientiousness (e.g., Boyce et al., 2010; Lin et al., 2015). We
further argue that trait conscientiousness is a mixed blessing, suggesting
that although trait conscientiousness might be associated with many
positive outcomes, it can also be costly (e.g., increased pressure).
Through investigating both the negative and positive effects of trait
conscientiousness, this study provides a balanced and dialectical un­
derstanding of the effects of trait conscientiousness.
Second, this study enables a parallel understanding of two central
elements (resource gain and loss) of COR theory. Extant studies drawing
on COR theory “place little emphasis on these two central issues in
parallel” (Liu, Chow, Zhu, & Chen, 2020, p. 287). Based on Liu et al.
(2020), through examining GSE as resource gain and performance
pressure as resource loss in parallel, this study contributes to COR theory
by laying stress on both resource gain and resource loss.
F. Liu et al. Personality and Individual Differences 184 (2022) 111216

Table 1
Means, standard deviations, and correlations of the study variables.
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Gender 1.64 0.48 –

2. Age 26.20 5.89 0.04 –
3. Education 15.49 1.57 0.03 − 0.40** –
4. Conscientiousness 3.62 0.74 − 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.72
5. General self-efficacy 3.70 0.70 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.31** 0.80
6. Performance pressure 3.34 0.85 − 0.06 − 0.02 0.16* 0.53** 0.19** 0.85
7. Thriving at work 3.78 0.82 − 0.10 0.05 − 0.09 0.18** − 0.15* 0.31** 0.95

Note. n = 203. Numbers 1–7 in the top row correspond to the variables in the respective sections of the table. Coefficient alpha values are presented in bold italics along
the diagonal. ** p <0.01, * p <0.05.

Table 2
Model fit results for confirmatory factor analyses.
Model χ2 df χ2/df CFI NNFI RMSEA SRMR

1. Hypothesized four-factor model 139.15 71 1.96 0.94 0.92 0.07 0.07

2. Three-factor model (combining GSE and performance pressure) 450.81 74 6.09 0.66 0.58 0.16 0.15
3. Two-factor model (combining GSE, performance pressure, and thriving at work) 615.76 76 8.1 0.51 0.41 0.19 0.16
4. Two-factor model (combining conscientiousness, GSE, and performance pressure) 503.4 76 6.62 0.61 0.53 0.17 0.15
5. Single-factor model 670.77 77 8.71 0.46 0.36 0.20 0.16

Note. GSE = general self-efficacy. CFI = comparative fit index; NNFI = nonnormed fit index; RMSEA = root mean squared error of approximation; SRMR = stan­
dardized root mean-square residual.

conscientiousness-a relatively bright trait-can inhibit TAW suggests a

Table 3
new perspective to explore how individual traits affect TAW.
Regression results for mediation (n = 203).
β SE t p
4.2. Practical implications
Predictor Dependent variable = GSE
Constant 0.711 0.594 1.198 0.233
Our findings suggest that practitioners should pay attention to po­
Gender − 0.072 0.086 − 0.843 0.400
Age 0.004 0.008 0.459 0.647 tential benefits and downsides of trait conscientiousness. To enhance the
Education 0.078 0.029 2.740 0.007 benefits of trait conscientiousness, organizations and managers should
Conscientiousness 0.499 0.056 8.987 0.000 pay attention to the positive role of GSE in the development of TAW. To
R2 0.314
reduce the costs of trait conscientiousness, organizations and managers
F 22.604
should not bring external performance pressure to bear upon conscien­
Predictor Dependent variable = Performance pressure tious employees, but instead provide them with support, such as
Constant 1.601 0.825 1.942 0.054
training, on dealing with performance pressure.
Gender 0.038 0.119 0.320 0.749
Age 0.002 0.011 0.167 0.868
Education 0.024 0.040 0.597 0.551 4.3. Limitations and future research
Conscientiousness 0.348 0.077 4.514 0.000
R2 0.096
F 5.233 First, we have only investigated GSE and performance pressure as
two mediators of the conscientiousness-TAW linkage. However, there
Predictor Dependent variable = Thriving at work
might be other alternative mediators derived from other theories that
Constant 4.014 0.782 5.131 0.000
Gender − 0.114 0.112 − 1.021 0.308 could explain the conscientiousness-TAW linkage. For example, based
Age 0.000 0.010 0.033 0.974 on ego-depletion theory (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice,
Education − 0.070 0.038 − 1.846 0.066 1998), conscientious individuals are self-controlled and might lead to
Conscientiousness 0.079 0.089 0.892 0.374
high levels of ego-depletion, and thus are less likely to thrive at work.
GSE 0.396 0.093 4.281 0.000
Performance pressure − 0.217 0.067 − 3.259 0.001 Researchers can further examine such mediators in the future.
R2 0.170 Second, we ignored the boundary condition of the conscientiousness-
F 6.677 TAW linkage. Future research can examine whether personality traits (i.
Bootstrap 95% confidence intervals for indirect effects e., neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and imagination), addi­
Mediator Effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI tional individual characteristics (e.g., perspective taking), and external
Total 0.122 0.063 0.002 0.248 factors (e.g., organizational support) might moderate the effects of trait
GSE 0.198 0.057 0.099 0.320
conscientiousness on TAW.
Performance pressure − 0.076 0.032 − 0.146 − 0.024
Third, we have tested our hypotheses using the two-wave design. We
Note. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. GSE = general self- suggest researchers to adopt longitudinal studies to better capture the
efficacy. Bootstrap sample size = 5000. LL = Lower limit; UL = Upper limit; effects of conscientiousness on TAW. Respondents should rate consci­
CI = Confidence interval. entiousness at Time 1, rate GSE and performance pressure at Time 2, and
rate TAW at Time 3.
Third, our study extends the thriving literature by revealing that
bright traits of individuals may lead to high performance pressure and 5. Conclusion
low TAW. Prior studies on the individual traits and TAW have focused on
only one perspective: how bright traits promote TAW, such as core self- Drawing upon COR theory, we proposed a dual-mediation model of
evaluations and proactive personality (see Kleine, Rudolph, & Zacher, trait conscientiousness and TAW. We found that trait conscientiousness
2019, for a meta-analysis). Hence, our finding that trait implies both enabling and burdening process for employees' TAW. That

4
F. Liu et al.
0.499 General self-efficacy
Conscientiousness
0.348 Performance pressure
Fig. 1. Mediating estimation model.
is, trait conscientiousness promotes TAW through enhancing GSE, and
inhibits TAW through increasing performance pressure.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Fang Liu: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft,
Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Funding acquisition. Wanjing
Qin: Data curation, Software. Xiaoyan Liu: Formal analysis. Jinxin Li:
Data curation. Lijun Sun: Investigation, Writing – review & editing,
Funding acquisition.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foun­
dation of China (grant numbers 71802063 and 72071052), MOE (Min­
istry of Education in China) Project of Humanities and Social Sciences
(grant number 20YJA630044), and the Philosophy and Social Science
13th Five-Year Planning Project of Guangzhou, China (grant number
2018GZGJ175).
References
Andreassen, C. S., Hetland, J., & Pallesen, S. (2010). The relationship between
“workaholism”, basic needs satisfaction at work and personality. European Journal of
Personality, 24(1), 3–17.
Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 20(4), 265–269.
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(5), 715–722.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is
the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5),
1252–1265.
Beauregard, T. A. (2012). Perfectionism, self-efficacy and OCB: The moderating role of
gender. Personnel Review, 41(5), 590–608.
Boyce, C. J., Wood, A. M., & Brown, G. D. A. (2010). The dark side of conscientiousness:
Conscientious people experience greater drops in life satisfaction following
unemployment. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(4), 535–539.
Brislin, R. W. (1986). A culture general assimilator: Preparation for various types of
sojourns. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(2), 215–234.
Burke, R. J., Matthiesen, S. B., & Pallesen, S. (2006). Personality correlates of
workaholism. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(6), 1223–1233.
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., Whiteman, J. A., & Kilcullen, R. N. (2000). Examination of
relationships among trait-like individual differences, state-like individual
differences, and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6),
835–847.
Cianci, A. M., Klein, H. J., & Seijts, G. H. (2010). The effect of negative feedback on
tension and subsequent performance: The main and interactive effects of goal
content and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 618–630.
Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales:
Tiny-yet-effective measures of the big five factors of personality. Psychological
Assessment, 18(2), 192–203.
Dudley, N. M., Orvis, K. A., Lebiecki, J. E., & Cortina, J. M. (2006). A meta-analytic
investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job performance: Examining
the intercorrelations and the incremental validity of narrow traits. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(1), 40–57.
Ebstrup, J. F., Eplov, L. F., Pisinger, C., & Jørgensen, T. (2011). Association between the
five factor personality traits and perceived stress: Is the effect mediated by general
self-efficacy? Anxiety Stress & Coping, 24(4), 407–419.
Eden, D., & Aviram, A. (1993). Self-efficacy training to speed reemployment: Helping
people to help themselves. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(3), 352–360.
Eisenberger, R., & Aselage, J. (2009). Incremental effects of reward on experienced
performance pressure: Positive outcomes for intrinsic interest and creativity. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 30(1), 95–117.
5
Personality and Individual Differences 184 (2022) 111216
0.396
Thriving at work
-0.217
Fu, F. Q., Richards, K. A., & Jones, E. (2009). The motivation hub: Effects of goal setting
and self-efficacy on effort and new product sales. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 29(3), 277–292.
Halbesleben, J. R. B., Neveu, J. P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. (2014).
Getting to the “COR”: Understanding the role of resources in conservation of
resources theory. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334–1364.
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:
A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.
American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Bono, J. E. (1998). The power of being positive: The relation
between positive self-concept and job performance. Human Performance, 11(2/3),
167–187.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Are measures of self-esteem,
neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common
core construct? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 693–710.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The core self-evaluations
scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 303–331.
Kleine, A., Rudolph, C. W., & Zacher, H. (2019). Thriving at work: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(9/10), 973–999.
Lapierre, L. M., & Hackett, R. D. (2007). Trait conscientiousness, leader-member
exchange, job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: A test of an
integrative model. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 80(3),
539–554.
Lee, S., & Klein, H. J. (2002). Relationships between conscientiousness, self-efficacy, self-
deception, and learning over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1175–1182.
Lin, W., Ma, J., Wang, L., & Wang, M. (2015). A double-edged sword: The moderating
role of conscientiousness in the relationships between work stressors, psychological
strain, and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(1), 94–111.
Liu, F., Chow, I. H., Zhu, W., & Chen, W. (2020). The paradoxical mechanisms of high-
performance work systems (HPWSs) on perceived workload: A dual-path mediation
model. Human Resource Management Journal, 36(2), 278–292.
Luszczynska, A., Gutiérrez-Doña, B., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). General self-efficacy in
various domains of human functioning: Evidence from five countries. International
Journal of Psychology, 40(2), 80–89.
Martocchio, J. J., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Relationship between conscientiousness and
learning in employee training: Mediating influences of self-deception and self-
efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 764–773.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its
applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175–215.
Mitchell, M. S., Baer, M. D., Ambrose, M. L., Folger, R., & Palmer, N. F. (2018). Cheating
under pressure: A self-protection model of workplace cheating behavior. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 103(1), 54–73.
Niessen, C., Sonnentag, S., & Sach, F. (2012). Thriving at work—A diary study. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 33(4), 468–487.
Parker, S. L., Jimmieson, N. L., & Johnson, K. M. (2013). General self-efficacy influences
affective task reactions during a work simulation: The temporal effects of changes in
workload at different levels of control. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 26(2), 217–239.
Porath, C., Spreitzer, G., Gibson, C., & Garnett, F. G. (2012). Thriving at work: Toward its
measurement, construct validation, and theoretical refinement. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 250–275.
Prem, R., Ohly, S., Kubicek, B., & Korunka, C. (2017). Thriving on challenge stressors?
Exploring time pressure and learning demands as antecedents of thriving at work.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(1), 108–123.
Qin, X., Chen, C., Yam, K. C., Huang, M., & Ju, D. (2020). The double-edged sword of
leader humility: Investigating when and why leader humility promotes versus
inhibits subordinate deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(7), 693–712.
Rudert, S. C., Keller, M. D., Hales, A. H., Walker, M., & Greifeneder, R. (2020). Who gets
ostracized? A personality perspective on risk and protective factors of ostracism.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(6), 1247–1268.
Skinner, N., & Brewer, N. (2002). The dynamics of threat and challenge appraisals prior
to stressful achievement events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3),
678–692.
Spreitzer, G. M., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S., & Grant, A. M. (2005). A socially
embedded model of thriving at work. Organization Science, 16(5), 537–549.
Stoeber, J., Otto, K., & Dalbert, C. (2009). Perfectionism and the big five:
Conscientiousness predicts longitudinal increases in self-oriented perfectionism.
Personality and Individual Differences, 47(4), 363–368.
Tay, C., Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2006). Personality, biographical characteristics, and job
interview success: A longitudinal study of the mediating effects of interviewing self-
efficacy and the moderating effects of internal locus of causality. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(2), 446–454.
F. Liu et al. Personality and Individual Differences 184 (2022) 111216

Tu, Y., Lu, X., Wang, S., & Liu, Y. (2020). When and why conscientious employees are Wanjing Qin is a Master Candidate in the School of Management, Guangzhou University.
proactive: A three-wave investigation on employees’ conscientiousness and Her major research interests include personality and individual differences.
organizational proactive behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 159(1),
Article 109865.
Xiaoyan Liu (PhD, Peking University) is an Associate Professor in the School of Man­
Tyssen, R., Hem, E., Gude, T., Grønvold, N. T., Ekeberg, Ø., & Vaglum, P. (2009). Lower
agement, Guangzhou University. Her major research interests are personality, delayed
life satisfaction in physicians compared with a general population sample: A 10-year
gratification, and performance pressure.
longitudinal, nationwide study of course and predictors. Social Psychiatry and
Psychiatric Epidemiology, 44(1), 47–54.
Witt, L. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Social skill as moderator of the conscientiousness- Jinxin Li is a Master Candidate in the School of Management, Guangzhou University. His
performance relationship: Convergent results across four studies. Journal of Applied major research interests include personality and thriving at work.
Psychology, 88(5), 809–820.
Yamkovenko, B., & Holton, E. (2010). Toward a theoretical model of dispositional
Lijun Sun (PhD, Macau University of Science and Technology) is an Associate Professor in
influences on transfer of learning: A test of a structural model. Human Resource
the School of Management, Guangzhou University. Her current research interests include
Development Quarterly, 21(4), 381–410.
personality, self-efficacy, and entrepreneurship.

Fang Liu (PhD, South China Agricultural University) is an Associate Professor in the
School of Management, Guangzhou University. Her primary research interests include
personality, overqualification, and human resources management systems.