The dark side of bright traits: How context cues misdirect facets of conscientiousness

PurposeThe authors test the proposition that there are dark sides to conscientiousness that are revealed when examining lower-level facets. The authors propose that potentially dysfunctional behavior is triggered by context cues that are relevant to duty versus achievement striving.Design/methodology/approachThe authors conducted two laboratory experiments designed to test how context cues that are specific to duty and achievement striving influence the relationship between these facets and quality versus quantity dimensions of task performance.FindingsIn Study 1, the authors found that normative quality cues led to a stronger relationship between duty and discretionary quality performance. In Study 2, achievement striving was associated with lower levels of quality performance in the presence of competitive feedback cues.Research limitations/implicationsThe findings illustrate that the dark side of duty and achievement striving emerges in two ways. First, when there is normative pressure for quality, dutiful individuals are apt to sacrifice efficiency. Second, when there is competitive feedback, achievement striving individuals focus on performance standards at the detriment of quality.Practical implicationsThe findings point to the importance of precision and specificity when using personality measures for staffing. Equally important is the informational content of cues conveyed by the social, task and organizational context, in leveraging the impact of personality in the workplace.Originality/valueThis paper clarifies the dark side and bright side contradiction of conscientiousness, adding to the growing literature on unique and often competing consequences of duty and achievement striving. The authors also draw attention to the importance of the content of contextual cues, in trait activation of personality.

[1]  H. Moon,et al.  The two faces of conscientiousness: duty and achievement striving in escalation of commitment dilemmas. , 2001, The Journal of applied psychology.

[2]  John P. Campbell,et al.  The Modeling and Assessment of Work Performance , 2015 .

[3]  D. Organ Organizational Citizenship Behavior: It's Construct Clean-Up Time , 1997 .

[4]  R. Reiter-Palmon,et al.  Conscientiousness Is Not Always a Good Predictor of Performance: The Case of Creativity , 2009 .

[5]  J. Nijenhuis,et al.  The General Factor of Personality: A meta-analysis of Big Five intercorrelations and a criterion-related validity study , 2010 .

[6]  P. Costa,et al.  Facet Scales for Agreeableness and Conscientiousness: A Revision of the NEO Personality Inventory☆ , 1991 .

[7]  J. Loevinger Has Psychology Lost Its Conscience , 1994 .

[8]  Michael A. McDaniel,et al.  A meta-analysis of the Dark Triad and work behavior: a social exchange perspective. , 2012, The Journal of applied psychology.

[9]  J. M. Digman Higher-order factors of the Big Five. , 1997, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[10]  H. E. King The Achievement Motive , 1977 .

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

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

[13]  D. Albarracín,et al.  The effects of chronic achievement motivation and achievement primes on the activation of achievement and fun goals. , 2009, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[14]  R. Landis,et al.  Quality and quantity goals in a complex decision task: Strategies and outcomes. , 1992 .

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

[16]  Kris Byron,et al.  How beliefs about the self influence perceptions of negative feedback and subsequent effort and learning , 2017 .

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

[18]  Dishan Kamdar,et al.  Me or We? The Role of Personality and Justice as Other-Centered Antecedents to Innovative Citizenship Behaviors within Organizations , 2007, The Journal of applied psychology.

[19]  T. Judge,et al.  Relationship of personality to performance motivation: a meta-analytic review. , 2002, The Journal of applied psychology.

[20]  A. Erez,et al.  ADAPTABILITY TO CHANGING TASK CONTEXTS: EFFECTS OF GENERAL COGNITIVE ABILITY, CONSCIENTIOUSNESS, AND OPENNESS TO EXPERIENCE , 2000 .

[21]  Gilad Chen,et al.  A multilevel integration of personality, climate, self-regulation, and performance. , 2006 .

[22]  Scott Highhouse Designing Experiments That Generalize , 2009 .

[23]  Philip M. Podsakoff,et al.  Experimental designs in management and leadership research: Strengths, limitations, and recommendations for improving publishability , 2019, The Leadership Quarterly.

[24]  Richard G. Gardner,et al.  The Five-factor Model of Personality Traits and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: a Meta-analysis Unresolved Issues regarding Citizenship and Personality , 2022 .

[25]  G. Johns The Essential Impact of Context on Organizational Behavior , 2006 .

[26]  P. Costa,et al.  Four ways five factors are basic , 1992 .

[27]  Eean R. Crawford,et al.  Hierarchical representations of the five-factor model of personality in predicting job performance: integrating three organizing frameworks with two theoretical perspectives. , 2013, The Journal of applied psychology.

[28]  Sophia V. Marinova,et al.  Understanding the Independent Influence of Duty and Achievement Striving When Predicting the Relationship Between Conscientiousness and Organizational Cultural Profiles and Helping Behaviors , 2013, Journal of personality assessment.

[29]  R. Kanfer Work Motivation: Identifying Use-Inspired Research Directions , 2009, Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

[30]  D. Detterman,et al.  Scholastic Assessment or g? , 2004, Psychological science.

[31]  Karin A. Orvis,et al.  A meta-analytic investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job performance: examining the intercorrelations and the incremental validity of narrow traits. , 2006, The Journal of applied psychology.

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

[33]  S. J. Motowidlo,et al.  Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. , 1994 .

[34]  S. Parker,et al.  A Look Back and a Leap Forward: A Review and Synthesis of the Individual Work Performance Literature , 2017 .

[35]  T. Judge,et al.  The Bright and Dark Sides of Personality: Implications for Personnel Selection in Individual and Team Contexts , 2007 .

[36]  C. Sansone,et al.  Competence, Achievement Orientation, and Intrinsic Motivation. A Process Analysis , 1985 .

[37]  Tamera L. McKinniss,et al.  The moderation of conscientiousness by cognitive ability when predicting workplace safety behavior , 2009 .

[38]  Nathan T. Carter,et al.  A test of the International Personality Item Pool representation of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory and development of a 120-item IPIP-based measure of the five-factor model. , 2014, Psychological assessment.

[39]  Stephen E. Humphrey,et al.  Cooperation, Competition, and Team Performance: Toward a Contingency Approach , 2003 .

[40]  D. Bergeron,et al.  The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behavior: Good citizens at what cost? , 2007 .

[41]  James M. LeBreton,et al.  The Dark Side of Personality and Extreme Leader Behavior , 2015 .

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

[43]  John P. Campbell,et al.  Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. , 1990 .

[44]  Michael R. Parke,et al.  Doing right versus getting ahead: the effects of duty and achievement orientations on employees' voice. , 2013, The Journal of applied psychology.

[45]  M. Bolino,et al.  Exploring the dark side of organizational citizenship behavior , 2013 .

[46]  Timothy A. Judge,et al.  The Person–Situation Debate Revisited: Effect of Situation Strength and Trait Activation on the Validity of the Big Five Personality Traits in Predicting Job Performance , 2014 .

[47]  Tahira M. Probst,et al.  The Effect of Consideration of Future Consequences on Quality and Quantity Aspects of Job Performance1 , 2012 .