The five-factor model of personality and managerial performance: validity gains through the use of 360 degree performance ratings.

This study investigated the usefulness of the five-factor model (FFM) of personality in predicting two aspects of managerial performance (task vs. contextual) assessed by utilizing the 360 degree performance rating system. The authors speculated that one reason for the low validity of the FFM might be the failure of single-source (e.g., supervisor) ratings to comprehensively capture the construct of managerial performance. The operational validity of personality was found to increase substantially (50%-74%) across all of the FFM personality traits when both peer and subordinate ratings were added to supervisor ratings according to the multitrait-multimethod approach. Furthermore, the authors responded to the recent calls to validate tests via a multivariate (e.g., multitrait-multimethod) approach by decomposing overall managerial performance into task and contextual performance criteria and by using multiple rating perspectives (sources). Overall, this study contributes to the evidence that personality may be even more useful in predicting managerial performance if the performance criteria are less deficient.

[1]  Brent Holland,et al.  Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: a socioanalytic perspective. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[2]  Walter C. Borman,et al.  More Progress Toward a Taxonomy of Managerial Performance Requirements , 1993 .

[3]  James M. LeBreton,et al.  Answers to 20 Questions About Interrater Reliability and Interrater Agreement , 2008 .

[4]  R. Hogan.  Personality and personality measurement. , 1991 .

[5]  Gerard Saucier,et al.  Orthogonal Markers for Orthogonal Factors: The Case of the Big Five , 2002 .

[6]  James M. LeBreton,et al.  The Restriction of Variance Hypothesis and Interrater Reliability and Agreement: Are Ratings from Multiple Sources Really Dissimilar? , 2003 .

[7]  Steven E. Scullen,et al.  Understanding the latent structure of job performance ratings. , 2000, The Journal of applied psychology.

[8]  Phillip W. Braddy,et al.  Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. , 2008, The Journal of applied psychology.

[9]  P. Sackett,et al.  Effects of Self-Deceptive Enhancement on Personality-Job Performance Relationships , 2007 .

[10]  Chockalingam Viswesvaran,et al.  Comparative analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings , 1996 .

[11]  K. Murphy.  Personnel Selection in Organizations , 1992 .

[12]  James R. Van Scotter,et al.  Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. , 1996 .

[13]  Robert E. Ployhart,et al.  The Consequences of Human Resource Stocks and Flows: A Longitudinal Examination of Unit Service Orientation and Unit Effectiveness , 2009 .

[14]  J. Conway,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of Incremental Validity and Nomological Networks for Subordinate and Peer Rating , 2001 .

[15]  R. Tett,et al.  A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[16]  Chockalingam Viswesvaran,et al.  Perspectives on Models of Job Performance , 2000 .

[17]  Troy V. Mumford,et al.  Coming Full Circle: Using Research and Practice to Address 27 Questions About 360-Degree Feedback Programs. , 2005 .

[18]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[19]  Gordon W. Cheung,et al.  Assessing Extreme and Acquiescence Response Sets in Cross-Cultural Research Using Structural Equations Modeling , 2000 .

[20]  Sarah A. Hezlett,et al.  TRAIT, RATER AND LEVEL EFFECTS IN 360‐DEGREE PERFORMANCE RATINGS , 1998 .

[21]  Alexander W. Astin,et al.  Criterion-Centered Research , 1964 .

[22]  E. Pedhazur.  Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research: Explanation and Prediction , 1982 .

[23]  Megan W. Gerhardt,et al.  Personality and leadership: a qualitative and quantitative review. , 2002, The Journal of applied psychology.

[24]  John Schaubroeck,et al.  A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. , 1988 .

[25]  L. Hough.  The 'Big Five' Personality Variables--Construct Confusion: Description Versus Prediction , 1992 .

[26]  Robert Hogan,et al.  A Socioanalytic Perspective on Job Performance , 1998 .

[27]  Walter C. Borman,et al.  360° ratings: An analysis of assumptions and a research agenda for evaluating their validity , 1997 .

[28]  S. Kozlowski,et al.  Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions , 2000 .

[29]  Kevin R. Murphy,et al.  INTERRATER CORRELATIONS DO NOT ESTIMATE THE RELIABILITY OF JOB PERFORMANCE RATINGS , 2000 .

[30]  Murray R. Barrick,et al.  THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS AND JOB PERFORMANCE: A META-ANALYSIS , 1991 .

[31]  J. Conway,et al.  Distinguishing contextual performance from task performance for managerial jobs. , 1999 .

[32]  Murray R. Barrick,et al.  Personality and Performance at the Beginning of the New Millennium: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go Next? , 2001 .

[33]  Frank L Schmidt,et al.  A counterintuitive hypothesis about employment interview validity and some supporting evidence. , 2004, The Journal of applied psychology.

[34]  M. D. Dunnette.  Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology , 2005 .

[35]  D. Ones,et al.  Personality and Extrinsic Career Success , 2008 .

[36]  Terry A. Beehr,et al.  Evaluation of 360 degree feedback ratings: relationships with each other and with performance and selection predictors† , 2001 .

[37]  Murray R. Barrick,et al.  Validity of observer ratings of the big five personality factors , 1994 .

[38]  Steven E. Scullen,et al.  Bias in the Correlated Uniqueness Model for MTMM Data , 2004 .

[39]  Kelly M. Hannum,et al.  Research update: 360-degree performance assessment. , 2006 .

[40]  R. L. Dipboye,et al.  RECONSIDERING THE USE OF PERSONALITY TESTS IN PERSONNEL SELECTION CONTEXTS , 2007 .

[41]  Allen I. Huffcutt,et al.  Psychometric properties of multisource performance ratings: A meta-analysis of subordinate, supervisor, peer, and self-ratings. , 1997 .

[42]  Peter M Bentler,et al.  Can scientifically useful hypotheses be tested with correlations? , 2007, The American psychologist.

[43]  J. Block.  A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. , 1995, Psychological bulletin.

[44]  Stephen A. Dwight,et al.  Predicting executive performance with multirater surveys: Whom you ask makes a difference. , 2002 .

[45]  Karl E. Weick,et al.  Managerial behavior, performance, and effectiveness , 1971 .

[46]  Donna Auguste,et al.  Customer Service , 2001, IEEE Internet Comput..

[47]  M. Ashton,et al.  Psychometric Properties of the HEXACO Personality Inventory , 2004, Multivariate behavioral research.

[48]  Neal Schmitt,et al.  Personality and work : reconsidering the role of personality in organizations , 2003 .

[49]  Kevin R. Murphy,et al.  Understanding Performance Appraisal: Social, Organizational, and Goal-Based Perspectives , 1995 .

[50]  K. Widaman.  Hierarchically Nested Covariance Structure Models for Multitrait-Multimethod Data , 1985 .

[51]  Jill E. Ellingson,et al.  Personality assessment across selection and development contexts: insights into response distortion. , 2007, The Journal of applied psychology.

[52]  P. Bliese.  Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. , 2000 .

[53]  R. Tett,et al.  Development and Content Validation of a "Hyperdimensional" Taxonomy of Managerial Competence , 2000 .

[54]  Robert E. Ployhart,et al.  Assessing the Convergent and Discriminant Validity of Goldberg’s International Personality Item Pool , 2006 .