The interactive effects of conscientiousness and agreeableness on job performance.

The authors hypothesized that the relationship between conscientiousness and job performance would be stronger for persons high in agreeableness than for those low in agreeableness. Results of hierarchical moderated regression analyses for 7 independent samples of employees across diverse occupations provided support for the hypothesis in 5 of the samples. In samples supporting the hypothesis, among the highly conscientious workers, those low in agreeableness were found to receive lower ratings of job performance than workers high in agreeableness. One explanation for lack of an interaction between conscientiousness and agreeableness in the other 2 samples is that those jobs were not characterized by frequent, cooperative interactions with others. Overall, the results show that highly conscientious workers who lack interpersonal sensitivity may be ineffective, particularly in jobs requiring cooperative interchange with others.

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

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

[3]  D. Magnusson,et al.  Personality at the crossroads : current issues in interactional psychology , 1977 .

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

[5]  Dennis W. Organ,et al.  Personality and Organizational Citizenship Behavior , 1994 .

[6]  Jeanette N. Cleveland,et al.  Performance Measurement and Theory , 1983 .

[7]  R. Goffin,et al.  Personality testing and the assessment center : Incremental validity for managerial selection , 1996 .

[8]  K. M. Kacmar,et al.  P=f(M X A): Cognitive Ability as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Personality and Job Performance , 1995 .

[9]  Murray R. Barrick,et al.  Relative importance of personality and general mental ability in managers' judgments of applicant qualifications. , 1995, The Journal of applied psychology.

[10]  William S. Peters,et al.  Form, effect size and power in moderated regression analysis , 1987 .

[11]  Murray R. Barrick,et al.  Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. , 1993 .

[12]  J. Salgado.  The Five Factor Model of personality and job performance in the European Community. , 1997, The Journal of applied psychology.

[13]  Stephanie C. Payne,et al.  The incremental validity of interview scores over and above cognitive ability and conscientiousness scores , 2000 .

[14]  L. A. Witt,et al.  Incremental Validity of Empirically Keyed Biodata Scales over GMA and the Five Factor Personality Constructs , 2000 .

[15]  J. M. Digman.  PERSONALITY STRUCTURE: EMERGENCE OF THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL , 1990 .

[16]  Jose M. Cortina,et al.  THE “BIG FIVE” PERSONALITY FACTORS IN THE IPI AND MMPI: PREDICTORS OF POLICE PERFORMANCE , 1992 .

[17]  M. L. Kelly,et al.  PERSONALITY MEASURES AND BIODATA: EVIDENCE REGARDING THEIR INCREMENTAL PREDICTIVE VALUE IN THE LIFE INSURANCE INDUSTRY , 1999 .

[18]  Joyce Hogan,et al.  Personality Measurement and Employment Decisions. Questions and Answers. , 1996 .

[19]  S. Golding.  Flies in the ointment: Methodological problems in the analysis of the percentage of variance due to persons and situations. , 1975 .

[20]  Murray R. Barrick,et al.  Five-Factor Model of personality and Performance in Jobs Involving Interpersonal Interactions , 1998 .

[21]  D. Kiker,et al.  Main and interaction effects of task and contextual performance on supervisory reward decisions. , 1999 .

[22]  Wayne A. Hochwarter,et al.  Perceptions of organizational politics as a moderator of the relationship between conscientiousness and job performance. , 2000, The Journal of applied psychology.

[23]  L. R. Goldberg.  THE DEVELOPMENT OF MARKERS FOR THE BIG-FIVE FACTOR STRUCTURE , 1992 .

[24]  Jeffrey J. Mchenry,et al.  PROJECT A VALIDITY RESULTS: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PREDICTOR AND CRITERION DOMAINS , 1990 .

[25]  Murray R. Barrick,et al.  Effects of impression management and self-deception on the predictive validity of personality constructs. , 1996, The Journal of applied psychology.

[26]  D. Goleman.  Working with Emotional Intelligence , 1998 .

[27]  Murray R. Barrick,et al.  Conscientiousness and performance of sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal setting. , 1993 .

[28]  D. Kolb.  Organizational Psychology: Readings on Human Behavior in Organizations , 2002 .