constienciousness is not enough

8/13/2019 Constienciousness is Not Enough

1/44

1

Conscientiousness May Not Be Enough

L. A. Witt

Department of Management

University of New Orleans

New Orleans, LA 70148-1560

(504) 280-6960

(504) 280-3951 (fax)

[email protected]

In J. M. Cortina (Chair), N. M. Dudley (Chair), K. A. Orvis (Chair), & M.

R. Barrick (Discussant), Spotting the trees: Beyond the Big Five in

predicting performance. Presented at the meeting of the Society for

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, Saturday, April 12,

2003 at 10:30am in Jasmine Bay (Royal Plaza).


2/44

2

Conscientiousness May Not Be Enough

Barrick, Mount, and Judge (2001) described two phases of research on relationships

between personality and job performance in the previous century. The first phase lasted until the

mid-1980s and was characterized by primary studies examining links between job performance

and individual scales from a wide variety of personality instruments. Barrick et al. noted that the

outcome of those 80+ years of research was that personality and performance were not

meaningfully related across traits and situations. Beginning in the mid-1980s, the second phase

yielded two key developments. One was the application of the Big Five (Goldberg, 1992)

model of personality (Fiske, 1949; Tupes & Christal, 1961) to selection research. Saucier and

Goldberg (2001) observed that the five factors are usually labeled extraversion (Factor I),

agreeableness (Factor II), conscientiousness (Factor III), emotional stability (Factor IV), and

intellect (Factor V). Although not without critics (e.g., Block, 1995; Eysenck, 1992), the Big

Five model has been a relatively well-accepted taxonomy of personality in the field of

personality psychology (Goldberg, 1992; John & Srivastava, 1999; McCrae & Costa, 1999;

Wiggins & Trapnell, 1997).

The other key development of the second phase was the application of meta-analysis to

summarize the relationships between the five factors and job performance across studies. Barrick

et al. (2001) cited 15 meta-analytic studies of personality-performance relationships (11 articles

and 4 conference presentations), the sum of which suggests that conscientiousness is the most

consistent among the Big Five factors to predict work outcomes across jobs. Indeed, an emerging

consensus suggests that with the exception of general mental ability, conscientiousness may be

the best individual differences predictor of job performance (e.g., Behling, 1998; Dunn, Mount,


3/44

3

Barrick, Ones, 1995). Based on evidence from the meta-analytic research, Barrick and Mount

(2000) advocated that applicants be hired on the basis of their conscientiousness scores as well as

their emotional stability scores.

Some researchers have argued that the measurement of broad personality factors as

reflected in the Big Five is preferable to the measurement of narrow facets when applying the

measurement to the prediction of job performance, itself a broad and complex criterion (Ones &

Viswesvaran, 1996). Paunonen (Paunonen, 1998; Paunonen & Ashton, 2001) has reported

evidence supporting the use of more narrow personality facets. Indeed, others have argued that

the Big Five model of personality may be too broad to predict behavior that is sensitive to

situational influences, such as work performance (Hough, 1992, Mershon & Gorsuch, 1988;

Mizes, Morgan, & Buder, 1989; Murtha, Kanfer, & Ackerman, 1996). Arthur, Woehr, and

Graziano (2001) explicitly suggested that reliance on the Big Five has led to a loss of precision

in measurement and a corresponding error in prediction. Consistent with Arthur et al.s (2001)

argument, I highlight recent research that has applied work in the personality literature on the

Abridged Big Five Dimensional Circumplex (Hofstee, de Raad, & Goldberg, 1992; Johnson &

Ostendorf, 1993) to selection research. Specifically, I discuss work examining Big Five

moderators of relationships between conscientiousness and work-related outcomes. The point of

this discussion is that conscientiousness is not by itself sufficient as a basis for hiring. In some

cases, hiring applicants high in conscientiousness may be destroying, rather than adding, value.

Conscientiousness and Work-Related Outcomes

Traits associated with conscientiousness include thoroughness and dependability versus

negligence and carelessness (Goldberg, 1993). Other labels for conscientiousness (McCrae &

Costa, 1985; Goldberg, 1992; Norman, 1963) include prudence (Hogan & Hogan, 1992),


4/44

4

conformity (Fiske, 1949), and will to achieve (Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981). Individuals

high in conscientiousness are organized, reliable, and responsible (McCrae & John, 1992).

Maintaining impulse control, they plan, delay gratification, and follow rules (John & Srivastava,

1999).

Application of the Big Five has been subject to criticisms that it lacks a theoretical

foundation and only provides a descriptive taxonomy (e.g., McAdams, 1992; Revelle, 1995).

However, researchers have described links between conscientiousness and work-related

outcomes as reflecting motivation. Motivation consists of three choices: (a) the choice to initiate

effort on a certain task, (b) the choice of expend a certain amount of effort, and (c) the choice to

persist in expending effort over a period of time (Campbell, 1976, p. 65). These three choices

are reflected in personality facets captured by conscientiousness (Mount, Barrick, & Strauss,

1999). Accordingly, Schmidt and Hunter (1992) have suggested that conscientiousness is the

most important trait-based motivation variable in the field.

Other things being equal, highly conscientious workers are generally successful, because

they are motivated to perform well (Mount & Barrick, 1995a). Conscientiousness predicts

withdrawal behaviors and core task performance, because high-conscientiousness workers are

more likely to maintain self-discipline (Colquitt & Simmering, 1998), be more effective at goal-

setting (Barrick, Mount, & Strauss, 1993; Gellatly, 1996), and persevere longer (Meyer &

Cuomo, 1962) than low-conscientiousness workers. Conscientiousness predicts interpersonal

facilitation, because highly conscientious workers respect social protocol, listen for and attend to

the details important to others, and are thorough in following up on matters of importance to

others. Conscientiousness predicts job dedication and organizational citizenship behaviors,

because highly conscientious workers observe rules, pay sufficient attention to detail to be able


5/44

5

to recognize what needs to be done, and pursue opportunities to do the right thing.

Conscientiousness predicts counterproductive behaviors, as highly conscientious workers

observe impulse control and respect social protocol.

Surprisingly, meta-analytic researchers have consistently reported very small average

observed validity coefficients of conscientiousness (e.g., r = .12 in Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein,

1991; r = .11 in Vinchur, Schippmann, Switzer, & Roth, 1998; r = .12 in Hurtz & Donovan,

2000). Reporting results of their second-order meta-analysis, Barrick et al. (2001) reported

variability in the validities of conscientiousness across studies (= .23; 90% credibility values

range from .10 to .35), suggesting the possible presence of moderator variables.

Aspects of the Situation as Moderators of Conscientiousness-Work Outcome Relationships

Before focusing on work that has examined Big Five moderators of relationships between

conscientiousness and work-related outcomes, it should be noted that an emerging literature has

identified aspects of the situation that moderate the relationships between conscientiousness and

work-related outcomes. Identified moderators include: (a) job satisfaction (Mount, Colbert,

Harter, & Barrick, 2000), (b) autonomy (Barrick & Mount, 1993), (c) performance expectancy,

performance valence, goal setting (Barrick, Mount, & Strauss, 1993), (d) perceptions of

organizational politics (Hochwarter, Witt, & Kacmar, 2000), and (e) goal choice (Gellatly,

1996). To this list, I add two additional situational moderators of relationships between

conscientiousness and job performance. One is situation strength operationalized in terms of rwg

of perceptions of organizational politics aggregated at the work unit level (Witt, Burke, &

Kacmar, 2001), which is presented in Figure 1. As shown there, conscientiousness was more

strongly related to supervisor ratings of job performance among workers in weak than strong

situations, consistent with Mischels (1977) arguments and previous findings (Barrick & Mount,


6/44

6

1993). The second is emotional exhaustion (Witt, Andrews, & Carlson, in press), which is

presented in Figure 2. As shown there, conscientiousness was positively related to objectively-

measured job performance (i.e., call volume of call center employees) among workers

experiencing low levels of emotional exhaustion but negatively related among those with high

levels of emotional exhaustion.

These studies have an interesting implication. When managers do their jobs,

conscientiousness has less of an impact on performance. For example, when managers enhance

the job satisfaction of their employees, provide sufficient autonomy, clearly establish goals and

expectations, take actions to reduce organizational politics, and provide emotional support to

diminish emotional exhaustion, workers are likely to understand what needs to be done and be

able to do it. In contrast, when managers are ineffective, then conscientious workers are likely to

be effective, and low-conscientious workers are likely to be ineffective, other things being equal.

An important question, however, is how often are other things equal, particularly when the

other things are individual differences in ability and personality?

Individual Differences as Moderators of Conscientiousness-Work Outcome Relationships

Selection researchers have primarily focused on the main effects of predictors rather than

on interactions (Goldstein, Zedeck, & Goldstein, 2002). Most of the studies in the 1990s

examined bivariate relationships between one personality dimension and performance (Arthur et

al., 2001). In studies in which more than one dimension were considered, the implicit assumption

was that their joint effects are independent and complementary (i.e., additive). However, Hogan,

Hogan, and Roberts (1996, p. 470) observed that interpreting a single scale in the absence of

other information is an ill-advised article of faith in traditional personality assessment. They

argued that the impact of a personality trait on behavior depends on other traits.


7/44

7

Work by personality researchers provides a foundation for examining multiplicative

relationships among the Big Five factors. Goldberg (1993) pointed out that a complete taxonomy

of personality attributes should include both the hierarchical and horizontal features of their

meanings. The hierarchical approach is based on a factor analysis approach to personality (i.e.,

personality items have principal loadings on one or another of the highest-level factors) and

emphasizes the vertical relations among the variables (e.g., from the most specific to the most

abstract) to the exclusion of the relationships among the variables at the same level (Goldberg,

1993, p. 171). It is this approach that yielded the Big Five model. In contrast, the horizontal

approach focuses on relations among traits in terms of their locations in multidimensional space

via the interpersonal circumplex (Leary, 1957). The circumplex features personality traits along

angular positions in either a two- or three-dimensional factor space. The two-dimensional

circumplex presents traits on the circle around bipolar, orthogonal coordinates of agreeableness

and extraversion (e.g., Wiggins, 1982). The three-dimensional circumplex is designed around

agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion (Peabody & Goldberg, 1989) or extraversion,

agreeableness, and emotional stability (Saucier, 1992a). An advantage of the horizontal approach

is that the interpersonal circumplex provides semantically cohesive clusters of traits that permits

fine-grained personality descriptions (Becker, 1999; Hofstee et al., 1992). The disadvantage is

that facet scores contribute no additional variance beyond what is explained by the five factors

employed in the hierarchical approach (see Hofstee, Ten-Berge, & Hendriks, 1998). As a result,

the horizontal approach has no usefulness for selection research beyond that offered by the

hierarchical approach.

As the previous circumplex models included only two or three of the five factors, Hofstee

et al. (1992) integrated the hierarchically-derived Big Five and horizontally-derived circumplex


8/44

8

models into an Abridged Big Five Dimensional Circumplex (AB5C). The AB5C is comprised of

ten two-dimensional circumplexes; it features all possible pairs of the five dimensions.

Specifically, it presents facets in terms of their two highest factor loadings; each trait is

characterized by its loadings on a subset of two of the five dimensions at a time. Despite

suggestions that the AB5C provides a guide for grouping facets of the Big Five in order to create

useful composites of the five factors (Barrick et al., 2001; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000), selection

researchers surprisingly paid little attention to the AB5C in the 1990s.

Emerging studies suggest that the other four factors of the Big Five model of personality

and other individual differences may moderate relationships between conscientiousness and

work-related outcomes. Review of these studies suggests that one reason that the main effect of

conscientiousness on work-related outcomes is lower than expected is that conscientiousness

does not have a positive relationship with work-related outcomes among individuals at average

and low levels of some of the other individual differences variables. It might also be argued that

a reason that the main effects of other Big Five traits are low is that the other Big Five traits do

not have a positive relationship with performance among individuals at average and low levels of

conscientiousness. Below, I discuss some of the empirical evidence and also apply the AB5C to

explain why each of the other four factors moderate relationships between conscientiousness and

work-related outcomes.

Extraversion

Alternative labels for extraversion (McCrae & Costa, 1985; Norman, 1963) include

surgency (Goldberg, 1992), confident self-expression (Fiske, 1949), and sociability (Hogan &

Hogan, 1992). Reflecting an energetic approach to the social and material world, extraversion

is associated with such traits as positive emotionality, activity, assertiveness, and sociability


9/44

9

(John & Srivastava, 1999, p. 121). Extraverts typically have enterprising vocational interests,

numerous friendships, and social skills (McCrae & Costa, 1999). Accordingly, researchers have

expected extraversion to predict performance. However, Barrick et al. (2001) reported average

observed validity coefficients of .07 for supervisor ratings and .06 for objective job performance

measures. They concluded that the relationship between extraversion and job performance could

not be distinguished from zero.

Recent studies have indicated that extraversion moderates the relationships between

conscientiousness and supervisor-rated counterproductive behavior (Witt, 2001, June), which is

presented in Figure 3, and supervisor-rated interpersonal deviance (Andrews, Witt, & Kacmar,

2003, April), which is presented in Figure 4. As shown in both figures, conscientiousness was

essentially unrelated to counterproductive and deviant behaviors among introverts but negatively

related among extroverts. On one hand, it is not surprising that low-conscientious extroverts

were the most likely to engage in counterproductive behaviors. Empirically-identified adjectives

describe the facets of the AB5C (Hofstee et al., 1992; Johnson & Ostendorf, 1993). The low-

conscientious extroverts are described as devil-may-care, exhibitionistic, gregarious, immodest,

boisterous, demonstrative, impulse-ridden, mischievous, rash, reckless, thoughtless, and unruly.

On the other hand, one might also not expect low-conscientious introverts to openly make fun of

others and engage in other public displays of inappropriate behaviors more so than low-

conscientious introverts, because they are described as inactive, indecisive, inefficient, lazy,

aimless, apathetic, non-persistent, passive, sluggish, unassured, wishy-washy, and unenergetic.

Similarly, the high-conscientious introverts are unlikely to manifest such inappropriate

behaviors, as they have a task orientation and are deliberate, formal, prudish, reserved,

restrained, serious, cautious, conservative, and thrifty. It is also not surprising that the high-


10/44

10

conscientious extroverts, who are described as persistent, purposeful, self-confident, enterprising,

firm, and vigorous, also did not manifest high levels of counterproductive and deviant behaviors.

As shown in Figure 5, conscientiousness was unrelated to the probability of being hired

among introverts but strongly related among extroverts (Witt, 2002). In this study, interview

performance was the sole criterion of selection (i.e., hire vs. do not hire decision) at the point the

data were collected. Perhaps conscientious introverts were unable to demonstrate their

conscientious attributes during the interview.

As shown in Figure 6, conscientiousness was more strongly related to sales performance

among extroverts than introverts (Witt, 2001, April). Interestingly, the low-conscientious

extroverts those who are exhibitionistic, gregarious, immodest, and demonstrative were the

most effective at sales. Considering that these workers were least likely to follow rules and get

overly involved in paperwork, it is not surprising that they would excel in sales jobs in which no

follow-up or customer service functions are required. However, the story was different in non-

sales jobs. As shown in Figure 7, while conscientiousness was more strongly related to

supervisor-rated job performance among extroverts than introverts, the persistent, purposeful,

and enterprising high-conscientious extroverts received the highest performance ratings (Witt,

2002). In contrast, the low-conscientious extroverts received the lowest performance ratings.

Agreeableness

Other labels for agreeableness (McCrae & Costa, 1985; Goldberg, 1992; Norman, 1963),

include social adaptability, (Fiske, 1949), friendly compliance (Digman & Takemoto-Chock,

1981), and likability (Hogan & Hogan, 1992). Agreeableness refers to such traits as flexibility,

generosity, sympathy, selflessness, cooperativeness, helpfulness, tolerance, and courtesy

(Digman, 1990). Some researchers have argued that this factor is the primary construct in the


11/44

11

assessment of individual differences (e.g., Havill, Besevegis, & Mouroussaki, 1998). However,

evidence suggests that agreeableness is only relevant to job performance in situations where joint

action and collaboration are needed (Mount, Barrick, & Stewart, 1998). Situations characterized

by a fairly high level of interpersonal interaction require tolerance, selflessness, and flexibility.

Individuals high in agreeableness strive for common understanding, maintain social affiliations,

and deal with conflict collaboratively or cooperatively (Digman, 1990).

Goleman (1998) suggested that highly conscientious who people lack interpersonal

competence are likely to contribute to dysfunctional outcomes (Goleman, 1998). Using

agreeableness as a proxy for interpersonal competence, Witt, Burke, Barrick, and Mount (2002)

empirically tested that notion. They found that agreeableness moderated the relationship between

conscientiousness and supervisor-rated job performance in five of seven samples. Figure 8

presents an example of their findings. As shown there, conscientiousness was more strongly

related to job performance among workers high than low in agreeablness. The kind, organized,

sincere, cooperative, and helpful (Hofstee et al., 1992; Johnson & Ostendorf, 1993) workers high

in both conscientiousness and agreeableness received the highest ratings of job performance.

More directly testing Golemans argument, Witt and Ferris (in press) investigated the

moderating effects of social skill and social skill awareness on the relationships between

conscientiousness and interpersonal facilitation, sales performance, and organizational

citizenship behaviors. Their findings, an example of which is presented in Figure 9, were

somewhat similar to those reported by Witt et al. (2002). Conscientiousness was positively

related to the various aspects of performance among socially skilled workers. However,

conscientiousness was negatively related to performance among workers low in social skill.

Social skill reflects ability (Riggio, 1986; Topping, Bremner, & Holmes, 2000) and is learned


12/44

12

(Gesten, Weissberg, Amish, & Smith, 1987; Riggio, 1986). Hence, it is possible that other

acquired individual differences in ability may have interactive effects with conscientiousness on

work-related outcomes. Focusing only on Big Five moderators may be limiting our potential

understanding of how, when, and why conscientiousness affects work-related outcomes.

Intellect/Openness to Experience

Other labels for intellect (e.g., Fiske, 1949; Goldberg, 1992; Saucier & Goldberg,

2001) include culture (Norman, 1963; Tupes & Christal, 1961), autonomy (Hendriks,

Hofstee, & De Raad, 1999), openness to experience (McCrae & Costa, 1985), intellectance

(Hogan & Hogan, 1992), and imagination (Goldberg, 1993; Saucier, 1992b). As one of the Big

Five factors, intellect is distinct from GMA, although they are related (Holland, Dollinger,

Holland, & MacDonald, 1995). Intellect encompasses a broad range of intellectual, creative,

and artistic inclinations, preferences, and skills found foremost in highly original and creative

individuals (John & Srivastava, 1999, p. 114) and describes the breadth, depth, originality, and

complexity of an individuals mental and experiential life (p. 121).

Workers high in intellect think beyond precedent or tradition (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen,

& Barrick, 1999), can effectively function autonomously (Judge et al., 1999; Saucier, 2000), and

understand the reasons for workplace change (Wanberg & Banas, 2000). In contrast to the

relatively imperceptive individuals low in intellect, inventive workers high in intellect identify

not-so-obvious solutions and see opportunities for adding value that others may miss. Recent

primary studies suggest that intellect predicts unique variance in job performance beyond that

accounted for my cognitive ability and the other Big Five constructs (Bing & Lounsbury, 2000)

and also predicts university-level academic performance (Lall, Holmes, Brinkmeyer, Johnson, &

Yatko, 1999; Rothstein, Paunonen, Rush, & King, 1994). However, despite consensus that


13/44

13

performance in many jobs requires workers to think outside the box to develop work solutions

as well as embrace change (Hitt, 2000; Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, & Welbourne, 1999; Lazer &

Shaw, 2000), the meta-analytic studies have clearly indicated that intellect does not predict job

performance across jobs and studies (e.g., Hurtz & Donovan, 2000). The average observed

validity coefficients have been barely above zero. However, intellect does predict training

proficiency (Salgado, 1997).

Figure 10 provides an example of how intellect moderated the relationships between

conscientiousness and performance outcomes. As shown there, conscientiousness was more

strongly to job performance among workers high than low in intellect. Perhaps not surprisingly,

high-conscientiousness workers who were cognitively flexible and open to change (i.e., high in

intellect) those described as learned, intellectual, analytical, clever, curious, organized,

perceptive, and refined (De Raad, Hendriks, & Hofstee, 1994; Hofstee et al., 1992; Johnson &

Ostendorf, 1993) were seen as more effective performers than high-conscientiousness workers

who were fairly rigid and resistant to change (i.e., low in intellect and described as rule-abiding,

conventional, predictable, and traditional).

Emotional Stability

Emotional Stability reflects such traits as nervousness and moodiness versus

imperturbability and stability (Goldberg, 1993). Other labels for emotional stability (Goldberg,

1992; Norman, 1963) include adjustment (Hogan & Hogan, 1992), ego strength (Digman &

Takemoto-Chock, 1981), emotional control (Fiske, 1949), and neuroticism (McCrae & Costa,

1985). McCrae and John (1992) described this factor on the negative pole using such terms as

self-pitying, unstable, worrying, anxious, touchy, and tense. They noted that emotionally

unstable individualsexperience low self-esteem and pessimistic attitudes. Such individuals see


14/44

14

themselves as victims, require considerable emotional support from others, doubt their abilities,

and experience less satisfaction and more stress than emotionally stable people (Judge, Locke,

Durham, & Kluger, 1998; Hogan & Briggs, 1984). They also tend to see situations in a negative

light and overreact to situations. Emotionally stable people, however, generally remain on an

even keel and have little anxiety.

Not surprisingly, evidence suggests that emotional stability also moderates the

relationships between conscientiousness and: (a) length of employment (Witt & Jones, 2003),

which is presented in Figure 11, and (b) interpersonal facilitation (Witt, 2001, November), which

is presented in Figure 12. As shown in both figures, conscientiousness was positively related to

these work outcomes among workers high in emotional stability workers but negatively related

among workers low in emotional stability. The self-disciplined, consistent, persevering, and

steady workers (Hofstee et al., 1992; Johnson & Ostendorf, 1993) high in both conscientiousness

and emotional stability remained on the job longer and also managed relationships more

effectively than other workers. In contrast, the overanxious, fussy, and particular workers high in

conscientiousness and low in emotional stability not only quit first and but also received the

lowest ratings of interpersonal facilitation.

Conclusion

Golding (1975) argued that caution should be applied when generalizing the results of a

study finding an interaction, as interactions often do not replicate. The interactions across

multiple samples presented here may provide some confidence that there is reason to consider

that the joint effects of conscientiousness with the other Big Five factors may be multiplicative.

My colleagues and I have taken some steps to take into account for alternative explanations. For

example, we have used the other Big Five factors, demographic variables, and even GMA as


15/44

15

covariates, when available and conceptually appropriate. In one study (Witt, 2002), I even used

four different personality measures the Hogan Personality Inventory (Hogan & Hogan, 1992),

the Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ; Saville, Holdsworth, Nyfield, Cramp, &

Mabey, 1984), Goldbergs (1999, Appendix A) Big Five factor markers in the International

Personality Item Pool, and the Mount & Barrick (1995b) Personal Characteristics Inventory

and found essentially the same form of the interaction across four samples.

Small Effect Sizes

A criticism that my colleagues and I often encounter from reviewers is that the findings

are weak; that is, only a very small percentage of variance is explained. To those of you

interested in pursuing research along the lines of the studies briefly overviewed here, I invite you

to consider two points. First, the approach most commonly used to test for the presence of

interactions hierarchical moderated multiple regression analysis (Aiken & West, 1991; Cohen

& Cohen, 1983), in which one examines the statistical significance of the F-test of the

incremental change () in R2brought about by adding the cross-product term of the predictor

and moderator as an additional variable in the equation (after accounting for the linear effects of

the predictor and moderator) typically yields very small increments in R2. In their reviews of

the social science literature, both Chaplin (1991) and Champoux and Peters (1987) reported that

interactions found in non-experimental studies typically accounted for 1-3% of the variance.

Similarly, Evans (1985, p. 417) reported results of a Monte Carlo simulation:

...when a genuine interaction exists, even under the most extreme conditions, we

find that the interaction usually explains at least 1% of the variance; when there is

no interaction, the interaction term invariably explains less than 1% of the

variance.


16/44

16

Furthermore, interactions are difficult to detect, because the F-test is sensitive to power.

At least four factors contribute to a loss of power. First, as interactions typically yield small

increments in R2, only interactions computed from large-sample data sets will be statistically

significant. Second, measurement error or non-optimal distributions in the components of the

cross-product term typically result in downward bias in the parameter estimates of the interaction

terms in the model (Aiken & West, 1991; Fuller & Hidiriglou, 1978; McClelland & Judd, 1993).

Third is the multicollinearity between the components of the interaction term and the

multiplicative composite (Morris, Sherman, & Mansfield, 1986), although this perspective has

not met with universal acceptance (Aiken & West, 1991; Cohen, 1978; Cronbach, 1987; Dunlap

& Kemery, 1987; Paunonen & Jackson, 1988). Another is the limited number of response

options on the criterion variable scale (Russell, Pinto, & Bobko, 1991). Because moderators are

difficult to detect, researchers typically conclude the non-existence of an interaction. In cases

where this conclusion is erroneous (i.e., a Type II error), the implications can be far-reaching. As

pointed out by Aguinis and Stone-Romero (1997), failing to assess interactions can have impact

on both: (a) theory, when hypotheses involving interaction effects are considered invalid, and (b)

management practice, when decisions are made to use personnel selection tests. Therefore,

researchers have made efforts to overcome the power limitations. Suggestions have included: (a)

increasing the reliability of the measures (Dunlap & Kemery, 1988; Evans, 1985), (b)

overselecting for extreme observations of the predictor (McClelland & Judd, 1993), (c) applying

latent variable modeling for estimating maximum-likelihood parameters and testing their

significance (Jaccard & Wan, 1995), and (d) increasing overall sample size (Aguinis & Stone-

Romero, 1997).


17/44

17

Frankly, we are likely to continue to be subject to the limitations of the R2in moderated

multiple regression analyses, as well as two derivatives -- the semi-partial correlation of the

interaction term (Cohen, 1978) and the standardized impact of the moderator on the regression

slope (Champoux, & Peters, 1987). The chief problem is that these approaches provide

conservative estimates of the effect size of the interaction term, because they represent the

average effect of the moderator across the entire range of values of the predictor variable.

However, in offering my second point, I invite you to consider that the problem of a very

small percentage of variance being explained plagues much of personality-based selection

research. Indeed, the main effects of the Big Five personality constructs typically yield very

small effect sizes. Indeed, meta-analyses suggest that the observed effect size of

conscientiousness on job performance may only be about .10 (Salgado, 1997), which of course is

equal to an R-squared of .01. Thus, a substantial literature with at least 16 meta-analytic studies

is built on constructs that may independently account for only 1-3% of the variance in job

performance (note that no form of correction is being mentioned here). Moreover, these mean

observed correlations do not reflect the incremental variance of these personality constructs over-

and-above the variance of any appropriate control variables or related constructs. Thus, I suggest

that our typical, albeit small, effect sizes may be similar in size to the main effects of well-

researched personality constructs, whose practical utility seem to have been accepted as

promising. Moreover, the practical impact of small effect sizes can be quite large (Abelson,

1985; Fichman, 1999; Rosenthal, 1990), and our findings have been with the typical range for

interaction effects in non-experimental studies (Champoux & Peters, 1987; Chaplin, 1991).


18/44

18

Implications for Practice

Researchers have argued that the use of the broad personality factors reflected in the Big

Five has yielded not only a loss of precision in measurement but also an error in prediction

(Arthur et al., 2001; Paunonen & Ashton, 2001). A possible solution would be to measure all of

the relevant facets of the AB5C. With each facet assessed by 10, 20, or more items, such an

approach would lead to a very long personality measure and thus perhaps be impractical for

application for selection in many organizations. Moreover, the facets scores may not add

variance beyond the Big Five dimensions (Hofstee et al., 1998). Further research along the lines

of the present study may yield justification for scoring protocol that would tap relevant

interactions among the Big Five dimensions that could be applied using very brief Big Five

measures. Indeed, examining conceptually appropriate interactions would permit an assessment

of how the facets of the AB5C are related to work-related outcomes when using conventionally

scored and commercially available Big Five measures.

Human resources professionals use validity evidence to make decisions as to which of the

five factor model scores to use for making selection decisions. When based on traditional

validity evidence (i.e., examining only main effects) that may indicate only conscientiousness

and emotional stability are statistically significant predictors of the relevant criteria, such

decisions may lead to the hiring of less-than-optimal candidates. For example, if human

resources policy dictates that conscientiousness is the only personality-based selection criterion,

then among the selected candidates may be persons high in conscientiousness but low in

agreeableness. Such individuals may be concerned with doing things the right way but

uncooperative in getting along with others. Accordingly, I invite you to consider that

conscientiousness is not enough.


19/44

19

Directions for Future Research

A limitation of applying the AB5C is that only two dimensions can be considered

simultaneously. Work is needed to expand the AB5C. With the development of an expanded Big

Five-based circumplex, future researchers may be able to consider three, four, or even five

dimensions simultaneously. Taking into account multiple factors simultaneously would be

helpful. Considering two factors at a time offers only a glimpse of the tip of the iceberg in terms

of understanding the complexity of personality as a predictor of work-related outcomes.

The AB5C provides a helpful descriptive taxonomy, but it is insufficient as a theoretical

basis for selection research. Recent work suggests that elements of the Big Five other than

conscientiousness reflect motivation (Judge & Ilies, 2002). Additional work is needed to link

elements of the AB5C to theoretical explanations of effectiveness at work, such as motivation

theories.


20/44

20

References

Abelson, R. (1985). A variance explanation paradox: When a little explains a lot.Psychological

Bulletin, 97,129-133.

Aguinis, H., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (1997). Methodological artifacts in moderated multiple

regression and their effects on statistical power.Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 192-

206.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991).Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.

Newsbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Andrews, M. C., Witt, L. A., & Kacmar, K. M. (2003, April).Extraversion and interpersonal

deviance on the job. To be presented at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and

Organizational Psychology, Orlando.

Arthur, W., Jr., Woehr, D. J., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Personality testing in employment

settings: Problems and issues in the application of typical selection practices.Personnel

Review, 30, 657-676.

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. (2000). Select on conscientiousness and emotional stability. In

E. A. Locke (Ed.),Handbook of principles of organizational behavior(15-28). Oxford,

England: Blackwell Publishers.

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). The FFM personality dimensions and job

performance: Meta-Analysis of meta-analyses.International Journal of Selection and

Assessment, 9, 9-30.


21/44

21

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

sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal setting.Journal of Applied

Psychology, 78, 715-722.

Becker, P. (1999). Beyond the Big Five.Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 511-530.

Behling, O. (1998). Employee selection: Will intelligence and conscientiousness do the job?

Academy of Management Executive, 12, 77-86.

Bing, M. N., & Lounsbury, J. W. (2000). Openness and job performance in U. S.-based Japanese

manufacturing companies.Journal of Business and Psychology, 14, 515-522.

Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description.

Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187-215.

Campbell, J. P. (1976). Psychometric theory. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial

and organizational psychology(pp. 185-222). Chicago: Rand-McNally.

Champoux, J., & Peters, W. (1987). Form, effect size, and power in moderated regression

analysis.Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 243-255.

Chaplin, W. F. (1991). The next generation of moderator research in personality psychology.

Journal of Personality, 59, 143-178.

Cohen, J. (1978). Partialled products are interactions; Partialled powers are curve components.


Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983).Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavior

sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Colquitt, J., & Simmering, M. (1998). Conscientiousness, goal orientation, and motivation to

learn during the learning process: A longitudinal study.Journal of Applied Psychology,

83,654-665.


22/44

22

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992).Revised NEO personality inventory and Five-Factor

model inventory professional manual.Odessa, FL.: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Cronbach, L. J. (1987). Statistical tests for moderator variables: Flaws in analyses recently

proposed.Psychological Bulletin, 102, 414-417.

De Raad, B., Hendriks, A. A. J., & Hofstee, W. K. B. (1994). The Big Five: A tip of the iceberg

of individual differences. In C. F. Halverson, G. A. Kohnstamm, and R. P. Martin (Eds.),

The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood(pp.

91-109). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Digman, J. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model.Annual Review of


Digman, J. M., & Takemoto-Chock, N. K. (1981). Factors in the natural language of personality:

Re-analysis, comparison, and interpretation of six major studies.Multivariate Behavioral

Research, 16, 148-170.

Dunlap, W. P., & Kemery, E. R. (1987). Failure to detect moderator effects: Is multicollinearity

the problem?Psychological Bulletin, 102, 418-420.

Dunlap, W. P., & Kemery, E. R. (1988). Effects of predictor intercorrelations and reliabilities on

moderated multiple regression. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,

41, 248-258.

Dunn, W. S., Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Relative importance of

personality and general mental ability in managers' judgments of applicant qualifications.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 500-510.


23/44

23

Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in

moderated multiple regression. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,

36, 305-323.

Eysenck, H. J. (1992). Four ways five factors are notbasic.Personality and individual

differences, 13, 667-673.

Fichman, M. (1999). Variance explained: Why size does not (always) matter. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 21,295-331.

Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency in the factorial structures of personality ratings from different

sources.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 329-344.

Fuller, W. A., & Hidiroglou, M. A. (1978). Regression estimation after correcting for

attenuation.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 73, 99-104.

Gellatly, I. (1996). Conscientiousness and task performance: Test of a cognitive process model.


Gesten, E. L., Weissberg, R. P., Amish, P. L., & Smith, J. K. (1987). Social problem-solving

training: A skills-based approach to prevention and treatment. In C. A. Maher and J. E.

Zins (Eds.),Psychoeducational interventions in the schools: Methods and procedures of

enhancing student competence(pp. 197-210). New York: Pergamon.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality": The big-five factor structure.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.

Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big Five factor structure.

Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.

Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of personality traits: Vertical and horizontal aspects. In D.

C. Funder, R. D. Parke, C. Tomlinson-Keasey, & K. Widamin (Eds.), Studying lives


24/44

24

through time: Personality and development(pp. 169-188), Washington, D.C.: American

Psychological Association.

Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the

lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. J. Deary, F. De Fruyt,

and F. Ostendorf (Eds.),Personality psychology in Europe, Vol. 7(pp. 7-28), Tilburg,

The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

Golding, S. L. (1975). Flies in the ointment: Methodological problems in the analysis of the

percentage of variance due to persons and situations.Psychological Bulletin, 82, 278-

288.

Goldstein, H. W., Zedeck, S. & Goldstein, I. L. (2002). g: Is this your final answer? Human

Performance, 15, 123-142.

Hendriks, A. A. J., Hofstee, W. K. B., & De Raad, B. (1999). The Five-Factor Personality

Inventory (FFPI).Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 307-325.

Hitt, M. A. (2000). The new frontier: Transformation of management for the new millennium.

Organizational Dynamics, 28, 6-17.

Hochwarter, W. A., Witt, L. A., & Kacmar, K. M. (2000). Perceptions of organizational politics

as a moderator of the relationship between conscientiousness and job performance.


Hofstee, W. K. B., de Raad, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (1992). Integration of the Big Five and

circumplex approaches to trait structure.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

65, 563-576.

Hofstee, W. K. B., Ten-Berge, J. M. F., & Hendriks, A. A. J. (1998). How to score

questionnaires.Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 897-909.


25/44

25

Hogan, R. T., & Hogan, J. (1992).Hogan Personality Inventory manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan

Assessment Systems.

Hogan, R. T., Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Personality measurement and employment

decisions.American Psychologist, 51, 469-477.

Hough, L. M. (1992). The "Big Five" personality variables construct confusion: Description

versus prediction.Human Performance, 5, 139-155.

Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,869-879.

Jaccard, J., & Wan, C. K. (1995). Measurement error in the analysis of interaction effects

between continuous predictors using multiple regression: Multiple indicator and

structural equation approaches.Psychological Bulletin, 117, 348-357.

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and

theoretical perspectives. In L. Pervin and O. P. John (Eds.),Handbook of personality:

Theory and research(Second edition; pp. 102-138). New York: Guilford.

Johnson, J. A., & Ostendorf, F. (1993). Clarification of the Five-Factor Model with the abridged

Big Five dimensional circumplex.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65,

563-576.

Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The Big Five personality

traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span.Personnel

Psychology,52, 621-652.

Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-

analytic review.Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797-807.


26/44

26

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial coping with

organizational change: A dispositional perspective.Journal of Applied Psychology, 84,

107-122.

Lall, R., Holmes, E. K., Brinkmeyer, K. R., Johnson,W. B., & Yatko, B. R. (1999). Personality

characteristics of future military leaders.Military Medicine, 164, 906-910.

Lazer, W., & Shaw, E. H. (2000). Executive insights: Global marketing management: At the

dawn of the new millennium.Journal of International Marketing, 8, 65-77.

Leary, T. (1957).Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald Press.

McAdams, D. P. (1992). The five-factor model in personality: A critical appraisal. Journal of

Personality, 60, 329-361.

McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and

moderator effects.Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376-390.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1985). Updating Norman's "adequacy taxonomy": Intelligence

and personality dimensions in natural language and in questionnaires.Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 710-721.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L. Pervin and O.

P. John (Eds.),Handbook of personality: Theory and research(Second edition; pp. 139-

153). New York: Guilford.

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its

applications.Journal of Personality,60,175-216.

Mershon, B., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1988). Number of factors in the personality sphere: Does

increase in factors increase predictability of real life criteria?Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 55, 675-680.


27/44

27

Meyer, H., & Cuomo, S. (1962). Who leaves? A study of background characteristics of engineers

associated with turnover. Crotonville, NY: Behavioral Science Research Division,

General Electric Company.

Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler

(Eds.),Personality at the crossroads:Current issues in interactional psychology(pp.

333-352). Lawrence Earlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.

Mizes, J. S., Morgan, G. D., & Buder, J. (1989). Global versus specific cognitive measures and

their relationship to assertion deficits.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49,

177-182.

Morris, J. H., Sherman, J. D., & Mansfield, E. R. (1986). Failures to detect moderator effects

with ordinary least-squares moderated multiple regression: Some reasons and a remedy.


Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995a). The Big Five personality dimensions: Implications for

research and practice in human resources management. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.),Research in

personnel and human resources management(Vol. 13, pp. 153-200). Greenwich, CT:

JAI Press.

Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995b). Manual for the Personal Characteristics Inventory.

Libertyville, IL: Wonderlic Personnel Test, Inc.

Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Strauss, J. P. (1999). The joint relationship of conscientiousness

and ability with performance: Test of the interaction hypothesis.Journal of Management,

25, 707-721.


28/44

28

Mount, M. K., Colbert, A. E., Harter, J. K., & Barrick, M. R. (2000, August).Does job

satisfaction moderate the relationship between conscientiousness and job performance?

Paper presented at the annual conference of the Academy of Management, Toronto.

Murtha, T. C., Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1996). Toward an interactionist taxonomy of

personality and situations: An integrative situational-dispositional representation of

personality traits.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 193-207.

Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor

structure in peer nomination personality ratings.Journal of Abnormal and Social


Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1996). Bandwidth-fidelity dilemma in personality measurement

for personnel selection.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 609-626.

Paunonen, S. V. (2001). Hierarhical organization of personality and prediction of behavior.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 538-556.

Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big Five factors and the facets and the prediction of

behavior.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 524-539.

Paunonen, S. V., & Jackson, D. N. (1988). Type I error rates for moderated multiple regression

analysis.Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 569-573.

Peabody, D., & Goldberg, L. R. (1989). Some determinants of factor structures from personality-

trait descriptors.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 552-567.

Revelle, W. (1995). Personality processes.Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 295-328.

Riggio, R. E. (1986). Assessment of basic social skills.Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 51,649-660.

Rosenthal, R. (1990). How are we doing in soft psychology.American Psychologist, 45,775-


29/44

29

776.

Rothstein, M. G., Paunonen, S. V., Rush, J. C., & King, G. A. (1994). Personality and cognitive

ability predictors of performance in graduate business school.Journal of Educational


Russell, C. J., Pinto, J. K. & Bobko, P. (1991). Appropriate moderated regression and

inappropriate research strategy: A demonstration of information loss due to scale

coarseness.Applied Psychological Measurement, 15, 257-266.

Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European

community.Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 30-43.

Saucier, G. (1992a). Benchmarks: Integrating affective and interpersonal circles with the Big-

Five personality factors.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 1025-1035.

Saucier, G. (1992b). Openness versus intellect: Much ado about nothing?European Journal of

Personality, 6, 381-386.

Saucier, G. (2000). Isms and the structure of social attitudes.Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 78, 366-385

Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1996). The language of personality: Lexical perspectives on the

five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality:

Theoretical perspectives(pp. 21-50). New York: Guilford.

Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (2001). Lexical studies of indigenous personality factors:

Premises, products, and prospects.Journal of Personality, 69, 847-880.

Saville, P., Holdsworth, R., Nyfield, G., Cramp, L., & Mabey, W. (1984). Occupational

Personality Questionnaire Manual. Thames Ditton, Surrey, England: Saville-

Holdsworth, Ltd.


30/44

30

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1992). Causal modeling of processes determining job

performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 89-92.

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.

Topping, K., Bremner, W., & Holmes, E. A. (2000). Social competence: The social construction

of the concept. In R. Bar-On and J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional

intelligence(pp. 28-39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961).Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings

(USAF WADC Tech. Note No. 61-97). Lackland Air Force Base, TX: U. S. Air Force.

Vinchur, A., Schippmann, J., Switzer, F., & Roth, P. (1998). A meta-analytic review of

predictors of job performance for salespeople.Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 586-

597.

Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a

reorganizing workplace.Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 132-142.

Wiggins, J. (1982). Circumplex models of interpersonal behavior in clinical psychology. In P. C.

Kendall and J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in clinical psychology

(pp. 183-221). New York: Wiley.

Wiggins, J., & Trapnell, P. D. (1997). Personality structure: The return of the Big Five. In R.

Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.),Handbook of personality psychology(pp. 737-

765). San Diego: Academic Press.

Witt, L. A. (2001, April).Extroverts low in conscientiousness produce the greatest sales volume.

Presented at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San

Diego.


31/44

31

Witt, L. A. (2001, November).Emotional stability and conscientious as interactive predictors of

job performance. Presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Management

Association, New Orleans.

Witt, L. A. (2002). The interactive effects of extraversion and conscientiousness on job

performance.Journal of Management, 28, 835-851.

Witt, L. A. (2002, April). Conscientiousness and intellect: Both necessary for performance?

Presented at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,

Toronto.

Witt, L. A. (2002, June).Extraversion and problem behavior on the job.Presented at the

American Psychological Society conference, New Orleans.

Witt, L. A., Andrews, M., & Carlson, D. (In press). When conscientiousness isnt enough:

Emotional exhaustion and call volume performance among call center customer service

representatives.Journal of Management.

Witt, L. A., Burke, L. A., Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2002). The interactive effects of

conscientiousness and agreeableness on job performance.Journal of Applied Psychology,

87, 161-169.

Witt, L. A., Burke, L. A., & Kacmar, K. M. (2001, August). When does personality matter:

Testing Mischel's Argument using rwgj. Presented at the meeting of the Academy of

Management, Washington, D. C.

Witt, L. A., & Ferris, G. R. (In press). Social skill as moderator of the conscientiousness-

performance relationship: Convergent results across four studies.Journal of Applied

Psychology.


32/44

32

Witt, L. A., & Jones, J. W. (2003, April). Very particular people quit first. To be presented at the

meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando.


33/44

33

Figure 1: The Impact of the Situation Strength on the Conscientiousness-

Performance Relationship

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

Conscientiousness

Job

Performanc

Low Agreement

Avg Agreement

High Agreement

-1 SD +1 SD

Source: Witt, Burke, and Kacmar, Academy of Management meeting, 2001 (1

sample)


34/44

34

Figure 2: The Impact of the Emotional Exhaustion on the Conscientiousness-

Objective Performance Relationship

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

Conscientiousness

CallV

olume

Low Emotional Exhaustion

Avg Emotional Exhaustion

High Emotional Exhaustion

-1 SD +1 SD

Source: Witt, Andrews, and Carlson,Journal of Management, in press (1sample)


35/44

35

Figure 3: The Impact of Extraversion on the Conscientiousness-

Counterproductive Behavior Relationship

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

Conscientiousness

CounterproductiveBehavi

Low Extroversion

Avg Extroversion

High Extroversion

-1 SD +1 SD

Source: Witt, American Psychological Society meeting, 2002 (1 sample)


36/44

36

Figure 4: The Impact of Extraversion on the Conscientiousness-Interpersonal

Deviance Relationship

2

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

Conscientiousness

Interperso

nalDeviance

Low Extroversion

Avg Extroversion

High Extroversion

-1 SD +1 SD

Source: Andrews, Witt, & Kacmar, SIOP meeting, 2003 (1 sample)


37/44

37

Figure 5: The Impact of Extraversion on the Conscientiousness-Interview

Performance (Hire vs. No-Hire) Relationship

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Extroversion

ProbabilityofBeingHired

Low Conscientiousness

Avg Conscientiousness

High Conscientiousness

-1 SD +1 SD

Source: Witt,Journal of Management, 2002 (1 sample)


38/44

38

Figure 6: The Impact of Extraversion on the Conscientiousness-Sales

Performance Relationship

1.7

1.75

1.8

1.85

1.9

1.95

2

Extroversion

Sales

Performance




-1 SD +1 SD

Source: Witt, SIOP meeting, 2001 (1 sample)


39/44

39

Figure 7: The Impact of Extraversion on the Conscientiousness-Supervisor-

Rated Performance Relationship

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Extroversion

JobPerformance




-1 SD +1 SD

.

Source: Witt,Journal of Management, 2002 (1 of 3 samples)


40/44

40

Figure 8: The Impact of Agreeableness on the Conscientiousness-Supervisor-


2.9

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

Conscientiousness

JobPerformance

Low Agreeableness

Avg Agreeableness

High Agreeableness

-1 SD +1 SD

Source: Witt, Burke, Barrick, and Mount,JAP, 2002 (1 of 5 samples out of 7)


41/44

41

Figure 9: The Impact of Social Skill on the Conscientiousness-Supervisor-


2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

Conscientiousness

Performance

Low Social Skill

Avg Social Skill

High Social Skill

-1 SD +1 SD

Source: Witt and Ferris,JAP, in press (1 of 4 samples)


42/44

42

Figure 10: The Impact of Intellect (i.e., Openness to Experience) on the

Conscientiousness-Supervisor-Rated Performance Relationship

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

Conscientiousness

JobPerformance

Low Intellect

Avg Intellect

High Intellect

-1 SD +1 SD

Source: Witt, SIOP meeting, 2002 (1 of 3 samples)


43/44

43

Figure 11: The Impact of Emotional Stability on the Conscientiousness-

Length of Employment Relationship

70

90

110

130

150

170

190

210

230

Conscientiousness

LengthofE

mployment

Low Emotional Stablity

Avg Emotional Stablity

High Emotional Stablity

-1 SD +1 SD

Source: Witt and Jones, SIOP meeting, 2003


44/44

44

Figure 12: The Impact of Emotional Stability on the Conscientiousness-

Supervisor-Rated Interpersonal Facilitation Relationship

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

Conscientiousness

InterpersonalFacilitation

Low Emotional Stablity

Avg Emotional Stablity

High Emotional Stablity

-1 SD +1 SD

Source: Witt, Southern Management Association meeting, 2001

constienciousness is not enough

Documents