- Email: [email protected]
Trait expression through perceived job characteristics: A meta-analytic path model linking personality and job attitudes
Accepted Manuscript Trait expression through perceived job characteristics: A metaanalytic path model linking personality and job attitudes
Alex L. Rubenstein, Yiwen Zhang, Qing Ma, Hayley Morrison, David F. Jorgensen PII: DOI: Reference:
S0001-8791(19)30036-3 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.02.002 YJVBE 3278
To appear in:
Journal of Vocational Behavior
Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:
22 July 2018 18 January 2019 18 February 2019
Please cite this article as: A.L. Rubenstein, Y. Zhang, Q. Ma, et al., Trait expression through perceived job characteristics: A meta-analytic path model linking personality and job attitudes, Journal of Vocational Behavior, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.02.002
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS
1
Trait Expression through Perceived Job Characteristics: A Meta-Analytic Path Model Linking Personality and Job Attitudes
IP
T
Alex L. Rubenstein, Ph.D. (corresponding author) Department of Management University of Central Florida PO Box 161400 Orlando, FL 32816-1400 E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (206) 818-8223
US
CR
Yiwen Zhang, Ph.D. Faculty of Business and Economics The University of Hong Kong Email: [email protected]
AN
Qing (Kathy) Ma, Ph.D. Division of International Business & Technology Studies Texas A&M International University Email: [email protected]
ED
M
Hayley Morrison Department of Management University of Central Florida Email: [email protected]
CE
PT
David F. Jorgensen Fogelman College of Business and Economics University of Memphis Email: [email protected]
AC
Alex L. Rubenstein is an assistant professor of management at the University of Central Florida. His research interests include employee turnover, challenging “established” facts in management, and individual differences in personality and ability. Yiwen Zhang is an assistant professor of management at the University of Hong Kong. His research interests include leadership, work stress, self and identity, and personnel selection. Qing Ma is an assistant professor of management at Texas A&M International University. Her research interests include employee turnover, job embeddedness, cross-cultural management, and personality. Hayley Morrison is a doctoral student in the management department at the University of Central Florida. Her research interests include individual differences in personality, regulatory focus at work, and creativity.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS
AC
CE
PT
ED
M
AN
US
CR
IP
T
David Jorgensen is a Ph.D. student at the University of Memphis. His research interests include social purpose marketing, international business, and social media in business.
2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS
3
Trait Expression through Perceived Job Characteristics: A Meta-Analytic Path Model Linking Personality and Job Attitudes
IP
T
Abstract
CR
Research has provided considerable support for the dispositional basis of job attitudes. However, the theoretical mechanisms that mediate such personality trait-job attitude
US
relationships have been less forthcoming. Drawing from five-factor theory and self-verification theory, in the present study we developed and tested a meta-analytic path model linking the
AN
five-factor model (FFM) of personality to overall job attitudes (i.e., job satisfaction and affective
M
organizational commitment) through employees’ perceptions of task and social job
ED
characteristics. In doing so, we reveal important work features through which each FFM trait is expressed to shape employee job attitudes. We discuss the implications of our results for both
PT
theory and practice and highlight future research directions for both personality trait and job
AC
CE
attitudes inquiry.
Keywords: job attitudes; personality; work design; meta-analysis
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS
4
Meta-analytic research (e.g., Choi, Oh, & Colbert, 2015; Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002)
IP
T
has established considerable support for the dispositional basis of job attitudes, defined by
CR
Judge and Kammeyer-Mueller as “evaluations of one’s job that express one’s feeling toward, beliefs about, and attachment to one’s job” (2012, p. 343). Across both meta-analyses, specific
US
validities of the five-factor model (FFM) of personality suggests that extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness are associated with higher job satisfaction and affective
AN
organizational commitment, neuroticism is associated with lower levels of both attitudes, and
M
openness is weakly positively associated with affective commitment (no effect was found for
ED
satisfaction). Other studies using alternative frameworks also attest to the utility of dispositions in predicting job attitudes (Arvey, Bouchard, Segal, & Abraham, 1989; Bruk-Lee, Khoury, Nixon,
PT
Goh, & Spector, 2009; Gerhart, 1987; Levin & Stokes, 1989; Staw, Bell, & Clausen, 1986;
CE
Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky, Warren, & de Chermont, 2003), even when traits are measured prior to individuals having had any work experience (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999).
AC
Still, much remains to be understood as to precisely how and why personality traits predict job attitudes. Prior work has primarily attended to establishing trait-attitude relationships, or evaluating the situational conditions under which trait expression is facilitated or inhibited in influencing attitudes (e.g., using person-job fit, trait activation, or situation strength approaches). For instance, Harari, Thompson and Viswesvaran (2018) found that extraversion more strongly predicted job satisfaction when employees attained status-related
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS
5
goals, whereas Christiansen, Sliter, and Frost (2014) showed that employees tended to be less satisfied at work when performing job tasks incongruent with their dispositions. Although such moderation tests yield important insights into the bounded nature of these relationships, it is also important to understand the explanatory processes underlying trait-attitude effects.
IP
T
Indeed, even if all employees in a sample are performing the same work (i.e., holding the job
CR
constant), there still often exists appreciable variance in work environment perceptions, implying that such variability is, to a meaningful extent, person-driven (e.g., Brown, Pierce, &
US
Crossley, 2014). As such, many researchers (e.g., Brief, 1998; Choi et al., 2015; Erdheim, Wang, & Zickar, 2006; Heller, Judge, & Watson, 2002; Spector, 1997; Srivastava, Locke, Judge, &
AN
Adams, 2010) have detailed this need to operationalize mediators of trait-attitude
M
relationships. For instance, Heller and colleagues noted, “this need has been voiced
ED
repeatedly…however, relatively little progress has been made” (2002, p. 831). Thus, while we can appreciate the body of scholarship demonstrating how situational factors moderate trait-
PT
attitude relationships, this does not preclude the possibility that such characteristics may
CE
mediate the relationship, and that delineating such mechanisms can help account for the unique reasons why each FFM trait predicts attitudes.
AC
In this study, we examine how perceived task and social job characteristics mediate the relationships between FFM traits and job attitudes. Our intention is not to question the predictive importance of trait-attitude relationships, but instead to explicitly model—and thereby help to better understand—how and why personality traits are related to job attitudes. To accomplish this, we develop and test a meta-analytic path model. We position the dependent variable of job attitudes as a higher-order factor indicated by job satisfaction and
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS
6
affective organizational commitment, given extant studies which argue that these specific attitudes represent the crux of individuals’ emotional employment attachment, and because they show considerable conceptual and empirical overlap (Chang, Rosen, & Levy, 2009; Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006; Le, Schmidt, Harter, & Lauver, 2010). We propose a key
IP
T
reason why traits predict job attitudes is because traits influence employees’ perceptions of
CR
task and social characteristics at work. Work design research has suggested that managers are largely influential to the extent that they design and manage meaning in their employees’ work
US
(Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006; Smircich & Morgan, 1982). In addition to this top-down influence of selection or environmental intervention, the gravitational hypothesis (Judge et al., 1999; Wilk,
AN
Desmarais, & Sackett, 1995) proposes that individuals might also self-select into work
M
environments commensurate with their dispositions.
ED
We ground our conceptual model in five-factor theory (Costa & McCrae, 1992; McCrae & Costa, 2008) and self-verification theory (Heider, 1958; Swann, 1983) to propose that each
PT
FFM trait elicits particular perceptions of job characteristics that align with one’s self-
CE
conceptions, and consequently, that job characteristics perceptions positively predict attitudes (Fried & Ferris, 1987; Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007). In testing our model, we meta-
AC
analyzed a large dataset of 819 independent samples. Personality Traits and Trait Expression
According to five-factor theory (Costa & McCrae, 1992), personality consists of “…relatively enduring patterns of thoughts, feelings, and actions…” (McCrae & Costa, 2008, p. 160), and traits represent basic psychological tendencies or density distributions of these patterns. Though various trait typologies abound, it has become well-accepted that the FFM,
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS
7
consisting of extraversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness, can most comprehensively account for the variance in “what people are” and “how people differ” (Digman, 1990). Moreover, since their initial labeling by Tupes and Christal (1961), the dimensionality of the FFM has been extensively replicated (John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008). It
IP
T
has also shown considerable utility to management research.
CR
Extraversion is described in terms of characteristic adaptations of sociability and assertiveness, and at its core, the trait is denoted by positive emotionality (Costa & McCrae,
US
1992; John, 1990). Neuroticism is related to (mal)adaptations of anxiety and nervousness, and is associated with negative emotionality (Clark & Watson, 1999; John, 1990). Conscientiousness
AN
tends to be expressed in adaptations of dutifulness and dependability. Such individuals are
M
reliable, detail-oriented, and motivated to achieve (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Agreeableness
ED
describes those who are compassionate, warm, and compliant. Some scholars have alternately characterized agreeableness as likability (Borgatta, 1964) or prosociality (Graziano, Habashi,
PT
Sheese, & Tobin, 2007). Fifth, openness is associated with characteristic adaptations of curiosity
CE
and spontaneity, and describes those who enjoy thinking about intellectual ideas, who
2005).
AC
appreciate beauty, and who are sensitive to their inner feelings (DeYoung, Peterson, & Higgins,
Because five-factor theory proposes that the genesis of human action resides in the individual, it is suggested that attitudes, at least in part, reside in individuals as well (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Judge & Hulin, 1993). Support for this idea is found in the stability of attitudes over time (Staw & Ross, 1985), strong trait heritability effects (Kandler, Riemann, & Kämpfe, 2009), substantial validities of traits predicting attitudes (Choi et al., 2015; Judge et al., 2002),
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS
8
genetic markers for attitudes (Song, Li, & Arvey, 2011), and in behavioral genetics studies of identical twins reared apart, who report similar attitudes and preferences (Arvey et al., 1989; Johnson, Turkheimer, Gottesman, & Bouchard, 2009). Mediators Linking Personality Traits and Job Attitudes
T
Why, though, do personality traits influence job attitudes? Five-factor theory proposes
IP
that traits are expressed through characteristic adaptations, which are patterns of thoughts,
CR
feelings, and action tendencies that affect cognitive and affective environmental reactions
US
(McCrae & Costa, 2008). That is, traits influence both how people perceive and how they proactively engage with their environments (Higgins & Scholer, 2008). Following Five-factor
AN
theory, we invoke the term trait expression to describe the process of how traits, as abstract
M
psychological potentials, translate into observable manifestations in the personality system
ED
(McCrae & Costa, 2008), rather than similar terms such as trait activation, which relates to interactionist approaches asking whether traits are predictive depending on certain contextual
PT
features being absent/present (Tett & Burnett, 2003). One central action tendency of trait
CE
expression is that of personal strivings, which at work, foster implicit desires for various motivational job characteristics (Barrick, Mount, & Li, 2013). However, not all traits are
AC
associated with the same strivings. Indeed, because the underlying basis of each trait is unique, so too will preferences for certain job characteristics for each trait be distinct. To account for which characteristics are associated with each trait, we are guided by self-verification theory. According to self-verification theory (Heider, 1958; Swann, 1983), once a person gains an understanding of who he or she is, they strive to confirm such self-conceptions through their preferences for and selection of life experiences. The process has been termed the selective
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS
9
interaction hypothesis, emphasizing that people are motivated to seek out situations and relationships that provide them with self-verifying feedback. For example, in an experiment by Swann, Stein-Seroussi, and Giesler (1992), the authors showed that those with positive selfviews were more likely to prefer interacting with an evaluator who had appraised their
IP
T
confidence and competence favorably, whereas those with negative self-views preferred
CR
evaluators who had appraised them unfavorably. In the vocational literature, Wiesenfeld, Swann, Brockner, and Bartel (2007) found that fair treatment predicted higher organizational
US
commitment for those with high self-esteem, but lower commitment for those with low selfesteem. Evidence supporting self-verification has been observed in myriad other studies
AN
(Swann et al., 2003); however, most of this work has tended to focus on self-esteem. Thus, the
M
present study offers an opportunity to more comprehensively illustrate self-verification effects
ED
by examining the FFM of personality traits.
Combining tenets of five-factor theory with those of self-verification theory leads us to
PT
the general proposition that higher levels of a given personality trait will be associated with
CE
gravitation toward and greater perceptions of job characteristics that provide self-verification of the adjectival descriptors underlying that trait. Subsequently, we expect that higher
AC
perceived job characteristics will have a positive relationship with job attitudes (Hackman & Oldham, 1975; Humphrey et al., 2007). Central to our theorizing is that the mediated pattern linking each FFM trait to job attitudes via job characteristics will be unique because each trait is expressed through action tendencies that lead higher subjective evaluations of different work design characteristics.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 10 We base our selection of perceived job characteristics using the theoretical frameworks offered by Morgeson and Humphrey (2006), Humphrey et al. (2007), and Barrick et al. (2013) focusing on task and social characteristics. These and other primary studies have shown task and social aspects of work enrichment to be distinct, and to uniquely predict job attitudes. We
IP
T
do not examine knowledge characteristics like information processing or specialization, or work
CR
context characteristics like physical demands or ergonomics, partly due to lack of theoretical guidance linking FFM traits to these variables, but also due to their general dearth of empirical
US
study. Perceived Task Characteristics
AN
We operationalize perceived task characteristics using five core constructs that facilitate
M
intrinsic work enrichment, thereby enhancing outcomes such as job attitudes (as well as
ED
intrinsic motivation and performance) (Fried & Ferris, 1987; Hackman & Oldham, 1975; Humphrey et al., 2007). They are: variety, identity, significance, autonomy, and feedback.
PT
Variety is the degree to which employees are able to perform different tasks on the job and
CE
utilize different skills and talents; identity is the degree to which a job allows individuals to complete a whole, identifiable piece of work, thereby allowing one to see the tangible results of
AC
his/her labor; significance is how much a job meaningfully impacts beneficiaries; autonomy is how much a job offers discretion, control, and decision latitude in how to perform one’s work— and more specifically, the methods, intensity, and pace of work; last, feedback is the degree to which a job provides recognition or performance information. Research supports a unidimensional structure regarding these characteristics (Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Loher, Noe, Moeller, & Fitzgerald, 1985), and studies typically combine them into a single index, called a
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 11 motivating potential score (Hackman & Oldham, 1975; Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006). Perceived Social Characteristics Social characteristics describe perceptions of work environments that facilitate positive
IP
T
interpersonal relationships between an employee and others within and outside an
CR
organization. As argued by Humphrey et al. (2007), social work design can improve employee attitudes largely because affiliation with others, or “getting along”, is a fundamental human
US
need (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Hogan & Holland, 2003) and fulfilling this need can buffer against work stress, improve motivation, and facilitate goal achievement (Asendorpf & Wilpers,
AN
1998; Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008). Consistent with Humphrey et al., we examined four positive
M
social characteristics: social support, which involves obtaining assistance/advice from others
ED
and having others available to listen, task interdependence, which involves dealing with others such as in a team setting or doing work that requires the involvement of multiple individuals
PT
coming together as a collective, interaction outside the organization, which involves contact
CE
and communication with non-organizational stakeholders, and feedback from others, which involves interpersonal feedback rather than feedback from the job. Though not explicitly
AC
considered by Humphrey et al., we also examine one negative social characteristic, interpersonal conflict or social antagonism, as an adverse aspect of social work design (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998; Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008). Taken together, favorable levels of perceived social characteristics describe an environment that is interpersonally enriching and offers positive social interactions. Consistent with Piccolo and Colquitt (2006) (see also Griffin, Bateman, Wayne, & Head,
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 12 1987), we propose that higher job attitudes need not derive from greater actual levels of the aforementioned characteristics, but rather on employees’ subjective perceptions about the degree to which they are present at work. That is, job characteristics need not be objectively present in order to influence attitudes, but rather so long as employees perceive them to be
IP
T
present, they will exert positive effects (Fried & Ferris, 1987; Humphrey et al., 2007).
CR
Hypotheses Extraversion
US
We expect extraversion to positively predict job attitudes through employee’s selfverification of both task and social perceived job characteristics. Extraversion is partly described
AN
in terms of leadership-striving and assertiveness (Costa & McCrae, 1992; DeYoung, Quilty, &
M
Peterson, 2007), which accentuate how extraverts strive to pursue status and agency by taking
ED
advantage of developmental and challenging work opportunities (Barrick, Stewart, & Piotrowski, 2002). For instance, extraverts are likely to perceive higher significance and identity
PT
because such characteristics provide verification that one performs prestigious work. Similarly,
CE
variety and autonomy offer opportunities for responsibility typical of leaders, and feedback
2003).
AC
provides diagnostic information on one’s relative performance (i.e., status) (Hogan & Holland,
Because extraversion is also described in terms of social forwardness or activity (John & Srivastava, 1999), we also expect perceived social characteristics to mediate the link between extraversion and job attitudes. In five-factor theory, those more extraverted express characteristic adaptations of seeking out supportive friendships and interdependent relationships both at work and outside of the organization with those who share similar tastes
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 13 (McCrae & Costa, 2008). However, one caveat is that the underlying social motives associated with extraversion tend to not be purely affiliative (John et al., 2008). Rather, extraverts more often seek out relationships to “get ahead”, such as to exert influence or to demonstrate dominance (Hogan, Rybicki, Motowidlo, & Borman, 1998). Still, regardless of one’s motives, it
IP
T
stands to reason that extraverts will be more apt to perceive greater social support/interaction,
CR
interdependence, and feedback from others, and will report lower levels of interpersonal conflict.
US
Hypothesis 1: The positive relationship between extraversion and job attitudes is mediated by perceived task (H1-a) and social (H1-b) job characteristics.
AN
Neuroticism
M
We next hypothesize a negative trend for neuroticism’s relationship with job attitudes,
ED
also mediated by both perceived task and social job characteristics. As self-verification theory suggests that people tend to gravitate toward situations that reinforce their self-concepts
PT
(Swann, Wenzlaff, Krull, & Pelham, 1992; Wilk et al., 1995), neurotics who are anxious,
CE
pessimistic, and volatile will express this trait by associating themselves with similar others. Studies show that, on average, neurotic individuals tend to have unfulfilling social interactions
AC
in multiple life domains and, simply put, do not get along well with others (John & Srivastava, 1999; Watson & Clark, 1997). This would imply a negative relationship between neuroticism and perceptions of social support, interdependence, and productive interactions outside of the organization, as well as perceiving greater levels of interpersonal conflict. Moreover, given that neuroticism is underpinned by being nervous, tense, and worrisome, those exhibiting high levels of the trait will be reluctant report perceiving much interpersonal feedback from others,
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 14 first because doing so necessitates greater interaction, and second, because neurotics tend to be pessimistic that such feedback will be valuable or positive (Zhong, Cao, Huo, Chen, & Lam, 2012). Indeed, studies show that neuroticism is associated with greater escape-avoidance coping and prevention-focused cognition (Kammeyer-Mueller, Judge, & Scott, 2009). Thus, we
IP
T
hypothesize that perceived social characteristics mediates a negative link between neuroticism
CR
and job attitudes.
We also propose a negative relationship between neuroticism and perceived task
US
characteristics, subsequently influencing job attitudes. As noted above, because anxiety and pessimism are at the core of neuroticism (John et al., 2008), such individuals are likely to adopt
AN
prevention- and withdrawal-based coping styles (Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2009), suggesting a
M
negative relationship with job feedback. Moreover, studies suggest that neurotic individuals
ED
tend to be less motivated to perform and to set goals (Judge & Ilies, 2002), are less engaged at work (Young, Glerum, Wang, & Joseph, 2018), and are more likely to ruminate on work
PT
stressors than to seek out motivating or fulfilling opportunities (Nolan, Roberts, & Gotlib, 1998).
CE
In this regard, we expect that neurotic employees will be less inclined to perceive that they
autonomy.
AC
perform complex or challenging work that offers identity, significance, task variety, and
Hypothesis 2: The negative relationship between neuroticism and job attitudes is mediated by perceived task (H2-a) and social (H2-b) job characteristics. Conscientiousness Conscientiousness is primarily expressed via self-verification through achievement, as such workers exhibit characteristic adaptations of industriousness and aspirations to build
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 15 expertise, along with being driven to perform and demonstrate competence (DeYoung et al., 2007; Judge & Ilies, 2002; Organ & Lingl, 1995). Conscientious individuals are self-starters, have a strong volition to achieve, and are apt to engage in greater goal-setting behavior (Barrick et al., 2002; Judge & Ilies, 2002). All of these factors would suggest positive links between
IP
T
conscientiousness and perceived task characteristics of variety, identity, and significance, which
CR
give a sense that work offers more purpose/meaning (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Humphrey et al., 2007). Similarly, conscientiousness should be related to greater perceptions of autonomy,
US
as such individuals who are more responsible and organized are more likely to aspire toward self-verifying opportunities to demonstrate their diligence in complex situations where one
AN
must work independently (McCrae & Costa, 2008). In addition, conscientious employees are
M
more apt to seek out job feedback, to ascertain whether they have succeeded in pursuit of
ED
achievement goals (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Van Den Berg & Feij, 2003). As a result of perceiving greater levels of task characteristics, conscientious employees should report more positive job
PT
attitudes.
CE
Hypothesis 3: The positive relationship between conscientiousness and job attitudes is mediated by perceived task job characteristics.
AC
Agreeableness
Judge et al. (2002) found a modest zero-order effect between agreeableness and job satisfaction ( = .17), whereas Choi et al. (2015) found that agreeableness exhibited the strongest zero-order relationship with affective commitment among FFM traits ( = .31). To explain such effects, we focus centrally on the mediating role of perceived social characteristics.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 16 Since agreeableness is associated with characteristic adaptations of trust, empathy, and cooperation (McCrae & Costa, 2008), and denotes a preference for interpersonal harmony (Goldberg, 1992), agreeable employees are likely to self-verify through perceiving social aspects of work design. Agreeable people are conflict-avoidant, are foremost motivated to get along
IP
T
with others rather than get ahead, and tend to seek out positive, supportive interpersonal
CR
relationships as an end in itself (Hogan & Blickle, 2013). Templer (2012) asserted that agreeable individuals are more satisfied precisely because they are “involve[d] in pleasant and satisfying
US
relationships with others” (2012, p. 118). Thus, at work, we expect that agreeable employees will perceive greater levels of socially supportive, interdependent experiences with coworkers,
AN
supervisors, and external stakeholders, greater feedback from others, and fewer interpersonal
M
frictions (Barrick et al., 2002, 2013), and that higher perceptions of such positive affiliative
ED
factors will elicit greater job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment. Hypothesis 4: The positive relationship between agreeableness and job attitudes is
PT
mediated by perceived social job characteristics.
CE
Openness
The conceptual linkage between openness and job attitudes has remained somewhat of
AC
a puzzle. Judge et al. (2002) found no relationship ( = .02) between openness and job satisfaction, whereas Choi et al. (2015) found a weak positive relationship between openness and affective commitment ( = .09). However, Choi et al. theorized that openness is related to “higher levels of need for variety and novelty” (2015, p. 1544) and, citing Dragoni, Oh, Vankatwyk, and Tesluk (2011), described how open employees have a greater preference to seek out diverse work experiences. We therefore might account for a positive relationship
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 17 linking openness to job attitudes insofar as open employees will perceive greater task characteristics. More open individuals also have characteristic adaptations of cognitive exploration, working with abstract concepts, and exhibit higher need for cognition (DeYoung et al., 2005;
IP
T
Sadowski & Cogburn, 1997), whereas those lower on the trait are more comfortable with the
CR
status quo. Empirically, Judge and Cable (1997) found support for the idea that open employees tend to be attracted to innovative work offering creative discretion (i.e., autonomy) and where
US
they can pursue diverse interests (i.e., variety). Similarly, Mount and colleagues (2005) found that openness predicted attraction to artistic work offering significance, identity, and
AN
autonomous opportunities, and George and Zhou (2000) theorized that because individuals
M
high on openness are more attuned to their feelings, they are likely to be more sensitive to task
ED
feedback (of both positive and negative valence). Because open individuals are thinkers (i.e., openness is often referred to as "Intellect" or "Culture"; Digman, 1990; DeYoung et al., 2007),
PT
we expect that more open employees will gravitate toward enriched, challenging work (i.e.,
CE
greater task characteristics) as it offers opportunities for self-verification via growth, divergent
attitudes.
AC
thinking, and intellectual expression, and that perceiving such characteristics will foster positive
Hypothesis 5: The positive relationship between openness and job attitudes is mediated by perceived task job characteristics (H5). Method
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 18 Primary Article Literature Search We took two steps to derive correlations used as input for our meta-analytic matrix. First, if estimates were available from previous meta-analyses, we used such estimates. Second, if estimates were not available, we performed original meta-analyses. Meta-analytic estimates
T
among FFM traits were obtained from van der Linden, te Nijenhuis, & Bakker (2010), which
IP
provides the most up-to-date assessment in normal adult populations and are consistent with
CR
the Mount et al. (2005) estimate, which omit clinical scales used for mental illness diagnoses,
US
such as those from Ones, Viswesvaran, and Reiss (1996). FFM-job satisfaction correlations were taken from Judge et al. (2002). For the meta-analytic correlation between job satisfaction and
AN
affective organizational commitment, we used the value obtained by Harrison, et al., (2006). In
M
addition, because the timing of our initial literature search overlapped with Choi et al. (2015),
ED
we independently meta-analyzed these effects, and our search yielded a considerable number of studies that they did not include.
PT
We searched for potential primary articles to include up to mid-2018 using PsycINFO,
CE
JSTOR, ISI Web of Science, Business Source Premier, and Google Scholar, seeking publications as well as unpublished dissertations/theses (found through ProQuest). We also conducted a
AC
manual search of journals (e.g., Journal of Applied Psychology, Academy of Management Journal, Personnel Psychology, Journal of Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Journal of Vocational Behavior). Our search included specific terms for each cell not previously meta-analyzed. For the FFM, we used the search terms Big Five, extraversion, extroversion, neuroticism, emotional stability, conscientiousness, agreeableness, openness, and intellect. For mediators, we used the following search terms: For perceived task characteristics, we searched for variables following
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 19 the job characteristics model, or “VISAF” framework, with the search terms variety, identity, autonomy, job control, discretion, decision latitude, significance, and feedback. We also coded for the broader terms job characteristic, task characteristic, as well as motivating potential, job complexity, and job skill, as these variables have often been used interchangeably to denote job
T
characteristic composites. However, complexity and skill variables were only included if they
IP
were veritable composite or aggregate measures of the VISAF framework. For perceived social
CR
characteristics, we used the search terms social support, relationship quality, interdependence, social integration, interaction outside organization, feedback from others, and interpersonal
US
conflict. We did not include perceived organizational support or organizational commitment as
AN
indicators here because we were interested in dyadic affiliative indicators, rather than broader targets (and affective commitment is our dependent variable). Lastly, we used three search terms
M
for attitudes: job satisfaction, work satisfaction, and commitment. For commitment, we only
ED
coded affective commitment to one’s organization. We did not include measures of normative, continuance, or career commitment, or measures of career or life satisfaction.
PT
Inclusion Criteria and Screening
CE
A number of additional inclusion rules were set. First, we excluded articles that were not empirical or quantitative in nature. Second, we excluded articles not reporting bivariate effects,
AC
or those that did not offer data that could be used to create an effect size (e.g., studies reporting univariate proportions, or means without standard deviations). Third, we excluded studies that only measured momentary or short-term attitudinal states, instead favoring overall attitudinal evaluations (i.e., how a person felt over the past week versus how they generally feel). Fourth, only articles that measured personality traits within the FFM framework were included. Fifth, we excluded studies reporting nested, unit-level, or group-level effects, as it may be inappropriate to
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 20 combine such estimates with individual-level results (Ostroff & Harrison, 1999). Sixth, we excluded non-employee participant samples, to isolate how personality traits are associated with task and/or social characteristics and attitudes specifically in work contexts. Seventh, only articles published in the English language were included.
T
Our search yielded 24,596 total articles across databases, many of which were duplicates.
IP
Following our inclusion criteria, we narrowed this figure down to a qualifying pool of 4,103
CR
articles. We entered these studies into the Zotero references software to more thoroughly check articles for potential inclusion. This process resulted in a final 819 independent coded samples
US
(728 published and 91 unpublished). Given the substantial number of articles generated, we only
AN
include articles cited in text in the References section. A full list of references and primary study information is included as an online appendix.
M
Coding Procedures and Common Measures
ED
A five-person team composed of faculty and advanced doctoral students with
PT
experience in personality and management research searched for and coded articles. Each initially coded five articles at a time to check for agreement and clarify procedures, after which
CE
inconsistencies were discussed. Next, the team independently coded the remaining studies.
AC
Any ambiguities or questions during coding were noted and resolved in twice-monthly meetings (e.g., whether a given measure was a codeable operationalization of a given trait). After coding was completed, the first and fourth authors went through all articles collected a second time to ensure coding accuracy, finding 24 instances of previous improper coding (e.g., numerical typos in 20 cases, and four of improper coding for the tripartite model of commitment rather than only affective).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 21 Primary studies were coded for sample size, reliability metrics (Cronbach’s alpha was used in 90.23% of cases, with split-half, Spearman-Brown, or composite reliability reported in a minority of studies), effect sizes (in all cases, correlations), and manuscript source (published article versus dissertation/thesis). In cases where multiple construct operationalizations were
IP
T
included in one sample (e.g., autonomy and task variety, or each of the five task
CR
characteristics), we followed Hunter & Schmidt’s (2004) recommendation to compute composite correlations. In 62 samples, reliability metrics were not reported, and so following
US
past approaches (e.g., Choi et al., 2015), the mean reliability across primary studies for that variable was inputted.
AN
Big Five Personality Traits. The most common trait measures were the NEO-FFI (Costa
M
& McCrae, 1992), Goldberg’s (1992) mini-markers, and the International Personality Item Pool
ED
(Goldberg, 1999). Across measures, mean reliabilities ( ) were: Extraversion = .80, Neuroticism = .82, Conscientiousness = .81, Agreeableness = .76, and Openness = .75.
PT
Perceived Job Characteristics. We coded both task and social perceived job
CE
characteristics. For task characteristics ( = .81, common measures of autonomy/variety included Hackman and Oldham’s (1980) Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS), or ad hoc measures of
AC
discretion or decision latitude. Feedback, task identity and significance were mostly assessed with measures from the JDS, and to a lesser degree, Morgeson and Humphrey’s (2006) questionnaire. Further, we identified 125 studies that used the motivating potential score index to measure task characteristics. For social characteristics ( = .76), as noted in our literature search, multiple variables comprised this category, such as social support, interdependence (focusing on task or goal interdependence and dealing with others, but not outcome
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 22 interdependence), feedback from others, interaction outside the organization, and interpersonal conflict (reverse-coded). Job Attitudes. Job satisfaction measures included both global and faceted approaches. Most commonly, studies used the Satisfaction With Work scale from the Job Description Index
IP
T
(Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969), the Job Satisfaction Survey (Spector, 1997), or an adaptation of
CR
Hackman and Oldham’s (1975) JDS, which also measures satisfaction. When multiple satisfaction facets were assessed, we computed composite correlations. For affective
US
commitment, over 45% of studies used Allen and Meyer’s (1990) measure, whereas the Mowday, Steers and Porter (1979) scale was second-most common measure. The mean = .85 and for affective commitment,
AN
reliability for job satisfaction was
M
Meta-Analytic Procedures
= .83.
ED
We used Hunter and Schmidt’s (2004) random effects meta-analytic approach. Our results include a sample size-weighted estimate of the uncorrected correlation for each meta-
PT
analytic relationship ( ), the reliability-corrected population estimate ( ), and the 95%
CE
confidence interval around . Corrections due to attenuation in reliability were performed using values reported in each study. If not directly provided in a study, we used the mean
AC
reliability ( ) across all studies for that variable. We also report the number of studies (k) and the cumulative sample size (N) for each meta-analytic effect. Lastly, in an effort to be comprehensive, we report standard deviations of corrected meta-analytic correlations (SD ) as well as 80% credibility intervals. Whereas confidence intervals estimate confidence in the population correlation, credibility intervals describe variation in the sampling distribution of primary studies, where 80% of values in primary studies are contained within the credibility
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 23 interval (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). Relationships between FFM traits and the mediators, as well as between mediators and attitudes, are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Because we also conducted an original meta-analysis between FFM and affective commitment, these results are also reported in Table 1.
CR
---------------------------------------
IP
Insert Tables 1 and 2 about here
T
---------------------------------------
Analyses
US
We followed the theory testing approach outlined by Viswesvaran and Ones (1995),
AN
which combines meta-analysis with structural equations modeling (SEM). The approach consists of seven steps. Steps 1 (identify constructs), 2 (identify operational measures), 3 (locate
M
studies), and 4 (estimate true correlations) have been discussed, so we move to steps 5–7, and
ED
estimate structural coefficients based on the reliability-corrected correlations, to obtain the best-fitting model to the data. The complete matrix containing correlations ( , ), the number
PT
of samples per relationship (k), and the meta-analytic sample size for each relationship (N), are
AC
CE
seen in Table 3.
-----------------------------Insert Table 3 about here ------------------------------
Correlations were used as input into the SEM, and were tested using Mplus version 8 (Muthén & Muthén, 2010). Because summary data (i.e., correlations) do not yield standard errors for significance tests, in line with previous meta-analyses (e.g., Judge & Ilies, 2002; Judge, Jackson, Shaw, Scott, & Rich, 2007), we used the median sample size (N = 316) of primary study
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 24 effects for path analyses.1 To test hypotheses, we undertook a conservative approach in which we modeled paths from FFM traits to a latent overall job attitude (OJA) factor through both mediators, as well as specifying direct effects from each trait to OJA. We controlled for the links between FFM traits and job attitudes to account for alternative explanatory paths (MacKinnon,
IP
T
Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002). Indirect effects were tested for significance using
CR
the Monte Carlo Method for Assessing Mediation (Selig & Preacher, 2008), which uses parameter estimates from the first- and second-stage models paths and their associated
US
asymptotic variances/covariance to simulate estimates of their joint distribution and computes a product term. This distribution is then used to estimate a 95% confidence interval.
AN
We allowed the mediators to covary, though not specifying causality. We evaluated
M
model fit using recommendations offered by Bollen (1989), Hu and Bentler (1999), and Marsh,
ED
Hau, and Wen (2004) by using the chi-square statistic (χ2), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), TuckerLewis Index (TLI), Standardized Root-Mean-Square Residual (SRMR), and the Root Mean-Square
PT
Error of Approximation (RMSEA) indices. Because χ2 is especially sensitive to sample size (Kline,
CE
2005), it is best used only for comparison purposes, rather than to assess absolute fit. Results
AC
Before delving into the path model results, we note some select effects. This is the first meta-analysis linking the FFM to perceived task/social characteristics. For social characteristics,
1
We used the median sample size of primary studies as our interest was in generalizing to the average study. An alternative approach sometimes used by researchers is to use the harmonic mean across cells in the meta-analytic correlation matrix as a means of generalizing to the population of studies. Based on the suggestion of an anonymous reviewer, we also estimated our path model using the harmonic mean (N = 27,778). Of course, this approach does not influence effect sizes, but does affect standard errors, and all indirect effects became significant at p < .01. Granted, one could argue that using the much smaller median sample size provides a far more conservative test of hypotheses.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 25 across all traits, agreeableness ( = .29) exhibited the strongest absolute effect, followed by extraversion ( = .19) and neuroticism ( = -.20). For task characteristics, conscientiousness ( = .23), had the strongest absolute effect, followed by openness ( = .21) and extraversion ( = .21).
IP
T
Since path coefficients were not specified directly to each job attitude, but rather to a latent overall job attitude (OJA) factor, this model is not fully saturated. The hypothesized
CR
model fit the data adequately: χ2(8) = 15.48 (p < .05), CFI = .98, TLI = .91, SRMR = .02, RMSEA =
US
.07. Standardized measurement model factor loadings for OJA were as follows: job satisfaction, λ = .80, and affective commitment, λ = .75. Both factor loadings are significant at p < .01.
AN
Figure 1 depicts the SEM path coefficients and variable R2, and Table 4 shows the effects
M
decomposition linking the FFM traits to OJA via the perceived job characteristics mediators. ---------------------------------------
ED
Insert Figure 1 and Table 4 about here ---------------------------------------
PT
For extraversion (Hypothesis 1), we did not find a significant indirect effect for perceived
CE
social (95% indirect effect confidence interval [CI] = -.004-.10, ns) or task characteristics (CI = .01-.10, ns). Thus, H1-a and H1-b were not supported. However, we did observe a significant
AC
and positive direct relationship between extraversion and OJA (γ = .13, p < .05). For Hypothesis 2 concerning neuroticism, neither perceived social (CI = -.08-.02, ns) nor task characteristics mediated paths (CI = -.07-.04, ns) were significant. As such, we do not find support for H2-a or H2-b. However, we did observe a significant negative direct relationship between neuroticism and OJA (γ = -.12, p < .05). That extraversion and neuroticism had significant direct effects is noteworthy, an issue to which we return in the Discussion.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 26 Hypothesis 3 proposed a mediated link from conscientiousness to OJA via perceived task characteristics. As shown in Table 4, this hypothesis was supported (CI = .02-.14, p < .05). Hypotheses 4 linked agreeableness to OJA through perceived social characteristics. This indirect path was significant, supporting the hypothesis (CI = .05-.15, p < .05).
IP
T
Lastly, Hypothesis 5 linked openness to job attitudes via perceived task characteristics.
CR
As shown in Table 4, this indirect path was significant (CI = .01-.12, p < .05). Thus, H5 is supported. We also observed a significant direct effect of openness on OJA (γ = -.15, p < .01).
US
Supplemental Analyses
Although theory suggests that various perceived task and social job characteristics can
AN
be clustered (e.g., Humphrey et al., 2007; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006), to justify grouping each
M
characteristic into its respective category, we conducted a series of subgroup analyses in which
ED
we separately meta-analyzed 11 additional path models using each of the 10 specific task and social characteristics as mediators (see Table 5 for the basis of these effects), as well as one
PT
based on studies using the overall motivating potential score task characteristics index. These
CE
models assess each perceived work design characteristic (e.g., autonomy, significance, social support, and interpersonal conflict) as mediators, with the other perceived job characteristics
AC
assessed generally, in order to examine whether our results hold across each specific job characteristic. One of these models, for example, links the FFM traits to perceived social characteristics and autonomy at the first stage, and perceived social characteristics and autonomy to OJA at the second stage, whereas another links the FFM to perceived task characteristics and social support at the first stage, and task characteristics and social support to OJA at the second. The 11th model links the FFM to motivating potential and social
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 27 characteristics at the first stage, and these mediators to OJA at the second. Though we do not provide the full empirical results from these analyses in text, we note that in all but one case (54/55 tests), the conclusions from the specific models mirrored that of the hypothesized general model. The only divergent case was where extraversion had a significant and positive
IP
T
indirect on OJA through interdependence.
CR
Second, to provide further insights into our findings, we also conducted relative weights analyses, shown in Table 6, which examines the unique contribution (i.e., the proportion of
US
variance in a mediator or endogenous dependent variable explained by individual predictors) of each FFM trait to predicting perceived task and social characteristics and job attitudes, as well
AN
as the contributions of perceived task and social characteristics to predicting attitudes. As
M
shown in the table, conscientiousness and openness account for the greatest variance in task
ED
characteristics (35.25% and 28.72%, respectively), agreeableness explained by far the most variance in predicting perceived social characteristics (54.28%), and task/social characteristics
PT
contributed most to predicting attitudes (75.83% for job satisfaction and 76.91% for affective
AC
by dispositions.
CE
commitment), though this also implies around a quarter of the variance in attitudes is explained
--------------------------------------Insert Tables 5 and 6 about here ---------------------------------------
Third, we considered whether our estimates differed whether the data were collected in a cross-sectional or longitudinal design. Of note, we only coded for longitudinal effects that were consistent with our theorized effect sequences. Across the 819 samples, 96 (11.72%) used a longitudinal design. The results of these tests largely were again quite similar to the
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 28 hypothesized model, with only two divergent cases: in the cross-sectional model, extraversion had an additional significant indirect effect through social characteristics, and in the longitudinal model, the indirect effect of openness through task characteristics was not statistically significant2
IP
T
Fourth, though prior work has supported treating attitudes or “morale” as a latent
CR
factor composed of job satisfaction and affective commitment (e.g., Chang et al., 2009; Harrison et al., 2006; Le et al., 2010), to defend this approach, we also estimated two observed
US
variable models using only satisfaction and only commitment as dependent variables. Generally speaking, the conclusions from these models were nearly identical to each other and to the
AN
latent attitude factor model. However, in the commitment-only model, agreeableness had an
M
additional significant positive direct effect to attitudes, and the openness-commitment direct
ED
effect was not significant.
Discussion
PT
The purpose of this study was to model how perceived task and social job characteristics
CE
theoretically account for how and why personality traits are expressed in shaping job attitudes. Our results show that all of the FFM traits exhibited non-zero relationships with overall job
AC
attitudes, yet the pathway(s) by which each trait is expressed to predict attitudes are unique. Our results help to better understand personality trait expression at work. For extraversion, we only observed a positive direct extraversion-OJA effect. In hindsight, this linkage might be accounted for by the intrinsic connection between extraversion and positive emotionality (Costa & McCrae, 1992; DeYoung, Quilty, & Peterson, 2007; Gray, 1994; Larsen & 2
Complete results of the specific task and social characteristics models, and the cross-sectional and longitudinal models, are available from the first author by request.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 29 Ketelaar, 1991; Watson & Clark, 1997): Research has found that extraversion is denoted by a behavioral activation system, such that the trait is associated with higher sensitivity to positive reward stimuli (Depue & Collins, 1999). As such, this might explain why extraverts are prone toward higher job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment. Related theoretical
IP
T
work (Judge, Locke, & Durham, 1997) has posited a link between personality traits and job
CR
attitudes via an “emotional generalization” process, whereby the affective undertones denoted by a given trait—here, extraversion with positive affectivity—can spill over into commensurate
US
attitudinal evaluations in other domains. That is, because extraverts tend to experience greater positive emotions, they are also naturally apt to rate their jobs and organizations in more
AN
favorable lights.
M
For neuroticism, contrary to expectations, the only significant path to OJA was its direct
ED
effect. Perhaps more than any other trait, neuroticism is affective in nature (Larsen & Ketelaar, 1991). Juxtaposed against extraversion’s activation system, neuroticism is described in terms of
PT
a behavioral inhibition system, being associated with a sensitivity to punishment stimuli (Depue
CE
& Collins, 1999). Thus, rather than neuroticism leading to negative perceptions of any specific job characteristic, the results may support a more internally-focused emotional generalization
AC
view, where neurotic employees, who tend to view themselves negatively, appraise their work environments more negatively as well (Gray, 1994; Judge et al., 1997; Levin & Stokes, 1989). For conscientiousness, as expected, we observed a significant mediated relationship through perceived task characteristics. Similarly, agreeableness and openness were expressed into perceived job characteristics as hypothesized—primarily via social and task characteristics, respectively. However, we also found a negative direct openness-OJA effect, meaning that after
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 30 accounting for job characteristics, open employees report being less satisfied/committed at work. Theoretical Implications There is near-indisputable consensus that dispositions influence job attitudes (Judge &
T
Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012). However, it is less clear how FFM traits shape such evaluations,
IP
especially for those traits less affective in nature (e.g., conscientiousness, openness, and
CR
agreeableness). Our work suggests that employees may perceive jobs differently with regard to
US
specific characteristics, offering evidence of important explanatory mechanisms for these effects.
AN
Although researchers agree that individual perceptions of task/social job characteristics
M
are critical in determining one’s affective and behavioral reactions at work (e.g., Barrick et al.,
ED
2013), previous studies have predominantly adopted an interactionist perspective, which theorizes how traits activate or inhibit the influence of job characteristics on work outcomes.
PT
Our study complements this scholarship, focusing on the subjective nature of job characteristics
CE
perceptions and subsequent work attitudes resulting from such intrinsic sources. Indeed, theoretical work by Barrick et al. (2013) suggests that subjective evaluations of work conditions
AC
often have a much stronger effect on affective and behavioral reactions than do objective levels of such conditions, implying that a meaningful proportion of the variance in such perceptions is due to individual differences such as FFM traits. In meta-analytically examining perceived task and social characteristics as mediators, we can subsequently better understand how personality traits are expressed in employee evaluations of meaningful work. Our findings also shed light on the differences among traits in shaping job characteristics
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 31 perceptions, and, in turn, work attitudes. As hypothesized, certain traits (e.g., conscientiousness and openness) influence attitudes through task characteristics perceptions, whereas others (e.g., agreeableness) exhibit effects through social characteristics perceptions. It is also noteworthy that although neuroticism showed the second-strongest zero order trait
IP
T
relationship with social characteristics, this link failed to reach statistical significance in the path
CR
model. Moreover, there were no significant indirect effects linking extraversion or neuroticism to attitudes. Although “emotionally stable individuals are calm, relaxed, less depressed, less
US
stress prone, and more confident” (Barrick et al., 2013, p. 141), the evidence presented suggests that such descriptors do not perhaps elicit focused activity toward positive
AN
interpersonal relationships or task enrichment, per se, but rather manifest in predominately
M
affective terms (and similarly for extraversion).
ED
Another implication of this study that we answer research calls to better understand “the etiology of job attitudes…” (Harrison et al., 2006, p. 320). A key takeaway of this study is in
PT
bringing clarity to the literature by helping bridge the chasm that is the total “personality
CE
system” (McCrae & Costa, 2008). In other words, by modeling specific task and social characteristics mechanisms that specify how personality traits are expressed at work, our
AC
results help connect what are considered more distal aspects of human nature (i.e., traits) with the proximal thoughts and feelings, and actions manifested in one’s environment (Cantor, 1990). Practical Implications Our findings offer insights for managers and human resource specialists. To the extent that managers are interested in both improving employee attitudes and facilitating work
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 32 environments that feel supportive and offer people recognition/meaning, rather than exclusively focusing on output—and there is evidence this is often the case (Saari & Judge, 2004; Young et al., 2018)— strategically using the FFM traits for selection, guided by our findings, would likely generate satisfactory returns. Whereas extant scholarship provides
IP
T
relatively generic instructions regarding what traits should be included in selection tools, our
CR
research offers greater detail regarding explanatory mechanisms to help managers make better sense of these relationships.
US
At a general level, our results suggest that managers and human resource specialists may find value in knowing that subjective task/social job characteristics perceptions and
AN
subsequent job attitudes derive, in part, from dispositions (also supported by our relative
M
weights analyses). Although managers often go to significant lengths to design and/or
ED
manipulate features of the task or social work context in an effort to improve the occupant’s perceptions of said context, as well as job attitudes, is also important to recognize that such
PT
evaluations do not solely derive from top-down managerial intervention. Rather, we have
CE
shown that, in a bottom-up sense, dispositional factors also contribute to job characteristic perceptions and resulting attitudes. Put differently, implementing personality assessment into
AC
selection efforts may, over time, be quite cost-effective as a means of improving employee’s perceptions of their work environments and job attitudes, rather than assuming attitude intervention efforts are the most effective approach, and which could yield disappointing returns (e.g., Knight, Patterson & Dawson, 2017). At a more specific level, our findings imply that employees are also apt to view their jobs as having more enriching levels of task and/or social characteristics due to particular
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 33 personality trait levels. Our findings can therefore inform practitioners as to the unique differences among FFM traits and the distinct mechanisms by which they affect job attitudes: Some trait are associated with greater perceptions of task characteristics, some with social characteristics, and others with neither. If a hiring manager selects for high conscientiousness,
IP
T
as is often advised (Barrick & Mount, 2000), our findings suggest that this will result in
CR
procuring a particular type of employee—someone who recognizes more of the task-enriching aspects of his/her work. In contrast, if a manager desires a workforce where employees
US
acknowledge corporate efforts to create a communal environment—and such goals are often seen in family firms (Arregle, Hitt, Sirmon, & Very, 2007; Kotlar & Demassis, 2013)—selecting on
AN
agreeableness would be a useful focus. At the same time, with the residual direct effects of
M
neuroticism and extraversion in mind, managers continually plagued by employee negativity
ED
regarding work conditions might not put excess blame on themselves, as a significant share of these evaluations can be attributed to internal, dispositional factors. That is, highly neurotic
PT
employees may view even the most attractive work environments negatively, whereas
CE
extraverts might still find silver linings in jobs offering less task/social enrichment. Granted, this does not absolve managers of the responsibility to make employees’ time at work as conducive
AC
to high performance as possible. Equally, appreciating individual self-selection forces (i.e., the gravitational hypothesis), recruiters might also consider tailoring or projecting the attractiveness of particular vacancy characteristics to the personality makeup of prospective applicants, as a means of reinforcing subjective fit between individual task/social characteristic wants and those supplied by a job (Cable & Yu, 2006). For a sales position, a recruiter might emphasize to more conscientious and
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 34 open individuals the opportunities available to work autonomously on accounts with high identity and greater sales feedback as a means of facilitating their task characteristics interests, whereas for agreeable individuals, the focus might be geared more towards opportunities to interact with others and develop long-lasting client relationships (Stevens & Macintosh, 2003).
T
Limitations and Future Research Directions
IP
Although our model was guided by theory, causality assertions cannot be guaranteed,
CR
even if one separates temporal measurement of independent and dependent variables. Though
US
it is easier to position FFM traits leading to work design characteristics than the other way around (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998), there exists the possibility of reverse directionality in
AN
other areas, for instance, more positive attitudes leading employees to perceive greater social
M
characteristics.
ED
Second, in presenting a “big picture” focus of personality traits, perceived job characteristics, and job attitudes, we may have omitted meaningful nuances in the model. For
PT
instance, we encourage work that examines personality facets (e.g., extraversion as sociability
CE
versus dominance, conscientiousness as responsibility versus achievement orientation, openness as intellect versus aesthetics; Harari et al., 2018; Judge, Rodell, Klinger, Simon, &
AC
Crawford, 2013) as it relates job characteristics/attitude perceptions. We also encourage studies to examine other attitudes beyond those examined here. For example, although affective commitment has strong overlaps with job satisfaction, continuance and normative commitment do not (Harrison et al., 2006), and so the theoretical mechanisms linking FFM traits to these evaluations may differ. Further, although we focused on perceived job characteristics in this study as a means of examining trait expression and job attitudes, future
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 35 research would be well-served in measuring objective job characteristics, such as those obtained through content analyses of job postings or staffing handbooks, as a means of comparing perceptual-related reasons of self-verification to proactive gravitation towards jobs offering greater levels of such characteristics.
IP
T
Third, as noted in the introduction and earlier discussion, we also acknowledge
CR
moderation perspectives, which examine how work attitudes and behavior are influenced by interactions between traits and one’s environment (Christiansen et al., 2014; Frieder, Wang, &
US
Oh, in press; Harari et al., 2018; Judge & Zapata, 2015). Although meta-analytic path analysis limits us from being able to test such interactions, it would be worthwhile to comprehensively
AN
test whether employees expressing a given FFM trait are more satisfied/committed when jobs
M
offer work design characteristics congruent with that trait. For example, those high in openness
ED
may have more favorable attitudes in work offering greater task characteristic levels. Fourth, although the perceived job characteristics depicted herein are one way to
PT
describe trait expression, future work may integrate other mediating explanations. It would be
CE
valuable to link traits to attitudes with theories highlighting process-based mechanisms rather than the content of work design (Kanfer, Frese, & Johnson, 2017). For example, traits might also
AC
be expressed via goal choice/setting (Barrick et al., 2013), expectancy formation (Judge & Ilies, 2002), state affective experiences (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), or self-regulation processes (Kanfer, 2012). We encourage research that examines the intervening role of these additional processes in trait expression at work.
References
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 36 Aguinis, H., Joo, H., & Gottfredson, R. K. (2013). What monetary rewards can and cannot do: How to show employees the money. Business Horizons, 56, 241-249. Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18. Arregle, J. L., Hitt, M. A., Sirmon, D. G., & Very, P. (2007). The development of organizational
IP
T
social capital: Attributes of family firms. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 73-95. Arvey, R. D., Bouchard, T. J., Segal, N. L., & Abraham, L. M. (1989). Job satisfaction:
CR
Environmental and genetic components. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 187-192. Asendorpf, J. B., & Wilpers, S. (1998). Personality effects on social relationships. Journal of
US
Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1531-1544.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2000). Select on conscientiousness and emotional
AN
stability. Handbook of principles of organizational behavior, 15, 19-40. Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Li, N. (2013). The Theory of Purposeful Work Behavior: The role
M
of personality, higher-order goals, and job characteristics. Academy of Management Review, 38, 132-153.
ED
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and job performance: Test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied
PT
Psychology, 87, 43-51.
CE
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
AC
Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 17, 303-316. Borgatta, E. F. (1964). The structure of personality characteristics. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 9, 8-17. Brief, A. P. (1998). Attitudes in and around organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Brown, G., Pierce, J. L., & Crossley, C. (2014). Toward an understanding of the development of ownership feelings. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 318-338.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 37 Bruk-Lee, V., Khoury, H. A., Nixon, A. E., Goh, A., & Spector, P. E. (2009). Replicating and extending past personality/job satisfaction meta-analyses. Human Performance, 22, 156-189. Cable, D. M., & Yu, K. Y. T (2006). Managing job seekers’ organizational image beliefs: The role of media richness and media credibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 828-840.
T
Cantor, N. (1990). From thought to behavior:" Having" and" doing" in the study of personality
IP
and cognition. American Psychologist, 45, 735-750.
CR
Chang, C. H., Rosen, C. C., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The relationship between perceptions of organizational politics and employee attitudes, strain, and behavior: A meta-analytic examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 779-801.
US
Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and
AN
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1082-1103. Choi, D., Oh, I. S., & Colbert, A. E. (2015). Understanding organizational commitment: A meta-
M
analytic examination of the roles of the Five-Factor Model of personality and culture.
ED
Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1542-1567. Christiansen, N., Sliter, M., & Frost, C. T. (2014). What employees dislike about their
PT
jobs: Relationship between personality-based fit and work satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 71, 25-29.
CE
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1999). Temperament: A new paradigm for trait psychology. Handbook of personality: Theory and Research, 2, 399-423.
AC
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological assessment, 4, 5-13. Depue, R. A., & Collins, P. F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of personality: Dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation, and extraversion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 491-517. DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Sources of openness/intellect: Cognitive and neuropsychological correlates of the fifth factor of personality. Journal of Personality, 73, 825-858.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 38 DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880-896. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the Five-Factor Model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440. Dragoni, L., Oh, I. S., Vankatwyk, P., & Tesluk, P. E. (2011). Developing executive leaders: The
T
relative contribution of cognitive ability, personality, and the accumulation of work
IP
experience in predicting strategic thinking competency. Personnel Psychology, 64, 829-
CR
864.
Erdheim, J., Wang, M., & Zickar, M. J. (2006). Linking the Big Five personality constructs to organizational commitment. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 959-970.
US
Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and metaanalysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287-322.
AN
Frieder, R. E., Wang, G., & Oh, I. S. (2018). Linking job-relevant personality traits, transformational leadership, and job performance via perceived meaningfulness at
M
work: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103, 324-333.
ED
Gerhart, B. (1987). How important are dispositional factors as determinants of job satisfaction? Implications for job design and other personnel programs. Journal of Applied
PT
Psychology, 72, 366-373.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure.
CE
Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42. Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the
28.
AC
lower-level facets of several five-factor models. Personality Psychology in Europe, 7, 7-
Gray, J. A. (1994). Personality dimensions and emotion systems. In P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 329-331). New York: Oxford University Press. Graziano, W. G., Habashi, M. M., Sheese, B. E., & Tobin, R. M. (2007). Agreeableness, empathy, and helping: A person × situation perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 583-599.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 39 Griffin, R. W., Bateman, T. S., Wayne, S. J., & Head, T. C. (1987). Objective and social factors as determinants of task perceptions and responses: An integrated perspective and empirical investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 501-523. Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 259-286.
T
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of
IP
Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170.
CR
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Harari, M. B., Thompson, A. H., & Viswesvaran, C. (2018). Extraversion and job satisfaction: The role of trait bandwidth and the moderating effect of status
US
goal attainment. Personality and Individual Differences, 123, 14-16. Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are job attitudes? Meta-
AN
analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 305-325.
M
Heath, C. (1999). On the social psychology of agency relationships: Lay theories of motivation
Processes, 78, 25-62.
ED
overemphasize extrinsic incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
PT
Heider. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. NY: Wiley. Heller, D., Judge, T. A., & Watson, D. (2002). The confounding role of personality and trait
CE
affectivity in the relationship between job and life satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 815-835.
AC
Higgins, E. T., & Scholer, A. A. (2008). When is personality revealed?: A motivated cognition approach. In O. John, R. Robins, & L. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 182–207). New York: Guildford Press. Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 100-112. Hogan, J., Rybicki, S. L., & Borman, W. C. (1998). Relations between contextual performance, personality, and occupational advancement. Human Performance, 11, 189-207.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 40 Hogan, R. & Blickle, G. (2013). Socioanalytic theory. In N. D. Christiansen & R. P. Tett (Eds.), Handbook of personality at work (pp. 53-70). New York: Routledge. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and
T
contextual work design features: a meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of
IP
the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1332-1356.
research findings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
CR
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in
John, O. P. (1990). The “Big Five” factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural
US
language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 66-100). New York, NY: Guildford Press.
AN
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of Personality:
M
Theory and Research (pp. 102-138). New York, NY: Guildford Press.
ED
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy. In O. John, R. Robins, & L.A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory
PT
and Research (pp. 114-158). New York, NY: Guildford Press. Johnson, W., Turkheimer, E., Gottesman, I. I., & Bouchard Jr, T. J. (2009). Beyond heritability:
220.
CE
Twin studies in behavioral research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 217-
AC
Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and organization attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50, 359-394. Judge, T. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1993). Job satisfaction as a reflection of disposition: A multiple source causal analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56, 388421. Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A metaanalytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797-807.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 41 Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2012). Job attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 341-367. Judge, T. A., & Zapata, C. P. (2015). 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. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 1149-1179.
T
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating
IP
role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 237-249.
CR
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530-541. Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The Big Five personality
US
traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621-652.
AN
Judge, T. A., Jackson, C. L., Shaw, J. C., Scott, B. A., & Rich, B. L. (2007). Self-efficacy and work-
Psychology, 92, 107-127.
M
related performance: The integral role of individual differences. Journal of Applied
ED
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151-188.
PT
Judge, T. A., Rodell, J. B., Klinger, R. L., Simon, L. S., & Crawford, E. R. (2013). Hierarchical representations of the five-factor model of personality in predicting job performance:
CE
integrating three organizing frameworks with two theoretical perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 875-925.
AC
Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Judge, T. A., & Scott, B. A. (2009). The role of core self-evaluations in the coping process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 177-195. Kandler, C., Riemann, R., & Kämpfe, N. (2009). Genetic and environmental mediation between measures of personality and family environment in twins reared together. Behavior Genetics, 39, 24-35. Kanfer, R. 2012. Work motivation: Theory, practice, and future directions. In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 455-495). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 42 Kanfer, R., Frese, M., & Johnson, R. E. (2017). Motivation related to work: A century of progress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 338-355. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guildford Press. Knight, C., Patterson, M., & Dawson, J. (2017). Building work engagement: A systematic review
T
and meta-analysis investigating the effectiveness of work engagement interventions.
IP
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38, 792-812.
CR
Kotlar, J., & De Massis, A. (2013). Goal setting in family firms: Goal diversity, social interactions, and collective commitment to family‐centered goals. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37, 1263-1288.
US
Larsen, R. J., & Ketelaar, T. (1991). Personality and susceptibility to positive and negative emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 132-140.
AN
Le, H., Schmidt, F. L., Harter, J. K., & Lauver, K. J. (2010). The problem of empirical redundancy of constructs in organizational research: An empirical investigation. Organizational
M
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112, 112-125.
ED
Levin, I., & Stokes, J. P. (1989). Dispositional approach to job satisfaction: Role of negative affectivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 752-758.
PT
Loher, B. T., Noe, R. A., Moeller, N. L., & Fitzgerald, M. P. (1985). A meta-analysis of the relation of job characteristics to job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 280-289.
CE
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable
AC
effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesistesting approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320-341. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2008). A five-factor theory of personality. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (Vol. 3, pp. 161-181. New York: Guilford Press.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 43 Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321-1339. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.
T
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus Use ’s Guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
IP
Nolan, S. A., Roberts, J. E., & Gotlib, I. H. (1998). Neuroticism and ruminative response style as
CR
predictors of change in depressive symptomatology. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 22, 445–455.
Ones, D., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality testing for
US
personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660-679. Organ, D. W., & Lingl, A. (1995). Personality, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship
AN
behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 339-350.
Ostroff, C., & Harrison, D. A. (1999). Meta-analysis, level of analysis, and best estimates of
M
population correlations: Cautions for interpreting meta-analytic results in organizational
ED
behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 260-270. Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The
PT
mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management journal, 49, 327340.
CE
Saari, L. M., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 43, 395-407.
AC
Sadowski, C. J., & Cogburn, H. E. (1997). Need for cognition in the Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Psychology, 131, 307-312. Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2008, June). Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects [Computer software]. Smircich, L., & Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership: The management of meaning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18, 257-273.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 44 Smith, P. C., Kendall, L., & Hulin, C. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and behavior. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Song, Z., Li, W., & Arvey, R. D. (2011). Associations between dopamine and serotonin genes and job satisfaction: Preliminary evidence from the Add Health Study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1223-1233.
T
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences. New
IP
York: Sage.
CR
Srivastava, A., Locke, E. A., Judge, T. A., & Adams, J. W. (2010). Core self-evaluations as causes of satisfaction: The mediating role of seeking task complexity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 255-265.
US
Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. (1985). Stability in the midst of change: A dispositional approach to job attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 469-480.
AN
Staw, B. M., Bell, N. E., & Clausen, J. A. (1986). The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 56-77.
M
Stevens, C. D., & Macintosh, G. (2003). Personality and attractiveness of activities within sales
ED
jobs. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 23, 23-37. Swann, W. B. (1983). Self-verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with the self. Social
PT
Psychological Perspectives on the Self, 2, 33-66. Swann, W. B., Wenzlaff, R. M., Krull, D. S., & Pelham, B. W. (1992). Allure of negative feedback:
CE
Self-verification strivings among depressed persons. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 293-306.
AC
Templer, K. J. (2012). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: The importance of agreeableness in a tight and collectivistic Asian society. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 61, 114-129. Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500-517. Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., Warren, C. R., & De Chermont, K. (2003). The affective underpinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic review and integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 914-945.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 45 Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (No. ASD-TR-61-97). Lackland Air Force Base, TX: US Air Force. Van Den Berg, P. T., & Feij, J. A. (2003). Complex Relationships among personality traits, job characteristics, and work behaviors. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 326-339.
T
Van der Linden, D., te Nijenhuis, J., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). The general factor of personality: A
IP
meta-analysis of Big Five intercorrelations and a criterion-related validity study. Journal
CR
of Research in Personality, 44, 315-327.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta‐analysis and structural equations modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48, 865-885.
US
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 767-793). San
AN
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the
M
structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw, & L.
ED
L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. (Vol. 18, pp. 1–74). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
PT
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14, 490-495.
CE
Wiesenfeld, B. M., Swann Jr, W. B., Brockner, J., & Bartel, C. A. (2007). Is more fairness always preferred? Self-esteem moderates reactions to procedural justice. Academy of
AC
Management Journal, 50, 1235-1253. Wilk, S. L., Desmarais, L. B., & Sackett, P. R. (1995). Gravitation to jobs commensurate with ability: Longitudinal and cross-sectional tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 79-85. Young, H. R., Glerum, D. R., Wang, W., & Joseph, D. L (2018). Who are the most engaged at work? A meta-analysis of personality and employee engagement. Journal of Organizational Behavior. doi.org/10.1002/job.2302
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 46 Zhong, J. A., Cao, Z. L., Huo, Y., Chen, Z., & Lam, W. (2012). The mediating role of job feedback in the relationship between neuroticism and emotional labor. Social Behavior and Personality, 40, 649-655.
T
Figure 1 Path Model Results
IP
Extraversion
Neuroticism
R2 = .09
T: -.04 S: -.07 OJA: -.12*
Conscientiousness
AN
Social Characteristics
Job Satisfaction
Affective Commitment
λ = .80 R2 = .64
λ = .75 R2 = .56
ED
T: -.03 S: .23** OJA: .04
.41**
M
Agreeableness
Openness
Overall Job Attitude
R2 = .11
T: .17** S: .02 OJA: .08
R2 = .65
.45**
US
Task Characteristics
CR
T: .10 S: .12 OJA: .13*
PT
T: .13* S: -.05 OJA: -.15**
CE
Notes. T = Task characteristics, S = Social characteristics, OJA = Overall job attitude. Median sample size N = 316. * p < .05 ** p < .01. Table 1 Relationships between FFM Traits and Job Characteristics Mediators
AC
Relationships Extraversion Task Characteristics Social Characteristics Affective Commitment Neuroticism Task Characteristics Social Characteristics Affective Commitment Conscientiousness Task Characteristics Social Characteristics Affective Commitment
k
N
SD
80 % CV Lower Upper
95% CI Lower Upper
48 39 50
23,060 15,369 11,447
.16 .16 .20
.21 .19 .24
.09 .09 .11
.09 .08 .11
.32 .30 .38
.18 .16 .21
.23 .23 .28
68 56 58
44,560 25,078 23,488
–.13 –.17 –.19
–.16 –.20 –.23
.13 .12 .12
–.32 –.36 –.42
.01 –.05 –.05
–.19 –.24 –.27
–.12 –.17 –.19
49 41 67
20,254 19,333 16,339
.18 .15 .20
.23 .18 .25
.12 .14 .17
.08 .01 .03
.38 .36 .48
.19 .14 .21
.27 .23 .30
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 47 Agreeableness Task Characteristics Social Characteristics Affective Commitment Openness Task Characteristics Social Characteristics Affective Commitment
30 36 52
15,553 16,877 13,163
.08 .24 .23
.11 .29 .29
.14 .12 .13
–.08 .14 .10
.29 .44 .48
.05 .25 .25
.16 .33 .34
32 32 46
17,800 14,076 11,411
.15 .05 .09
.21 .07 .11
.14 .12 .17
.02 –.09 –.10
.38 .22 .33
.15 .02 .06
.25 .11 .17
CR
IP
T
Notes. k = number of correlations; N = combined sample size; = sample-size-weighted mean correlation; = estimated population correlation; = standard deviation of estimated population correlation; CV = credibility interval; CI = confidence interval.
N 266,929
367 105
248,560 112,868
247 101
170,648 95,519
M
80 % CV
95% CI
.34
SD .16
Lower .14
Upper .54
Lower .32
Upper .36
.40 .36
.51 .46
.17 .15
.30 .26
.73 .66
.49 .43
.53 .49
.38 .39
.48 .50
.13 .14
.32 .31
.64 .68
.47 .47
.50 .53
.27
AN
k 270
ED
Relationships Task-Social Characteristics Task Characteristics Job Satisfaction Affective Commitment Social Characteristics Job Satisfaction Affective Commitment
US
Table 2 Relationships between Job Characteristics Mediators and Job Attitudes
AC
CE
PT
Notes. k = number of correlations; N = combined sample size; = sample-size-weighted mean correlation; = estimated population correlation; = standard deviation of estimated population correlation; CV = credibility interval; CI = confidence interval.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Running Head: PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 48 Table 3 Meta-Analytic Correlations among All Study Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Extraversion .80 ( ) k (N) 2. Neuroticism .82 a ( ) −.26 (−.36) k (N) 212 (144,117) 3. Conscientiousness .81 a a ( ) .21 (.29) –.32 (–.43) k (N) 212 (144,117) 212 (144,117) 4. Agreeableness .76 a a a ( ) .18 (.26) –.26 (–.36) .31 (.43) k (N) 212 (144,117) 212 (144,117) 212 (144,117) 5. Openness to Experience .75 a a a a ( ) .31 (.43) –.12 (–.17) .14 (.20) .14 (.21) k (N) 212 (144,117) 212 (144,117) 212 (144,117) 212 (144,117) 6. Task Characteristics .81 ( ) .16 (.21) –.13 (–.16) .18 (.23) .08 (.11) .15 (.21) k (N) 48 (23,060) 68 (44,560) 49 (20,254) 30 (15,553) 32 (17,800) 7. Social .76 Characteristics ( ) .16 (.19) -.17 (-.20) .15 (.18) .24 (.29) .05 (.07) .27 (.34) k (N) 39 (15,369) 56 (25,078) 41 (19,333) 36 (16,877) 32 (14,076) 270 (266,929) 8. Job Satisfaction .85 b b b b b ( ) .19 (.25) –.24 (–.29) .20 (.26) .13 (.17) .01 (.02) .40 (.51) .38 (.48) k (N) 75 (20,184) 92 (24,527) 79 (21,719) 38 (11,856) 50 (15,196) 367 (248,560) 247 (170,648) 9. Affective Commitment .83 c ( ) .20 (.24) –.19 (–.23) .20 (.25) .23 (.29) .09 (.11) .36 (.46) .39 (.50) .54 (.60) k (N) 50 (11,447) 58 (23,488) 67 (16,339) 52 (13,163) 46 (11,411) 105 (112,868) 101 (95,519) 112 (39,187) Notes. Italicized numbers on the main diagonal are reliability coefficients. = Sample-size-weighted corrected mean correlation; = Correlation corrected for reliability a attenuation in the predictor and criterion; k = Number of effects meta-analyzed; N = Total sample size in the meta-analysis. Median study sample size = 316. van der Linden, te b c Nijenhuis, & Bakker (2010). Judge, Heller, & Mount (2002). Harrison, Newman, & Roth (2006). 1.
T P
I R
C S
A
U N
D E
T P
C A
E C
M
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Running Head: PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 49 Table 4 Mediation Effect Decomposition Monte Carlo Indirect Effect Lower/Upper 95% Confidence Interval Bounds to OJA via
FFM Trait
Direct Effect
Extraversion
Conscientiousnes
D E
s
T P
Agreeableness
E C
Openness
C A
UB
LB
UB
U N
.10
-.004
.10
A
-.12*
M
.08
C S
Social Characteristics
LB .13*
Neuroticism
T P
I R
Task Characteristics
-.01
ns
-.07
.04
ns -.08
ns
.02
ns .14
-.04
p < .05 .04 -.15**
-.07
.04 ns
.01
.02
.06 ns
.05
.15
p < .05 .12
p < .05
-.07
.03 ns
Notes. Median study sample size N = 316. LB = Lower bound, UB = Upper bound. OJA = Overall job attitude.* p < .05, ** p < .01. 95% confidence intervals that do not cross zero are significant at p < .05.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 50
Table 5 Meta-Analytic Relationships among FFM Traits, Specific Task/Social Job Characteristics and Job Attitudes E (SD ) k/N
N (SD ) k/N
C (SD ) k/N
A (SD ) k/N
O (SD ) k/N
JSAT (SD ) k/N
.18 (.05) 10 / 2,770 .20 (.10)
-.11 (.00) 9 / 3,381 -.15 (.10)
.16 (.08) 8 / 2,583 .16 (.00)
.24 (.07) 6 / 2,196 .21 (.10)
-.01 (.18) 6 / 1,837 .07 (.00)
2 / 1,044 .20 (.09) 26 / 10,694
2 / 1,044 -.19 (.10) 37 / 16,314
2 / 1,044 .16 (.15) 25 / 11,799
2 / 945 .28 (.13) 25 / 10,484
.15 (.06) 4 / 2,794 .19 (.16) 2 / 945
-.26 (.14) 12 / 6,644 -.21 (.09) 2 / 945
.23 (.12) 9 / 5,840 .20 (.00) 2 / 945
.29 (.08) 8 / 5,184 .28 (.20) 2 / 945
.18 (.09) 33 / 22,357
-.13 (.11) 42 / 39,360
Variety
.14 (.04) 8 / 1,786
-.12 (.04) 8 / 1,939
T P
Significance
.20 (.15) 9 / 2,959 .17 (.00) 4 / 1,148 .16 (.06) 8 / 1,826
Social Characteristics Interdependence Feedback from Others Social Support Conflict (Rev.-code) Int. Outside Task Characteristics Autonomy
Identity Feedback from Job
D E
ACOM (SD ) k/N
SOC (SD ) k/N
TASK (SD ) k/N
.34 (.17) 43 / 19,727 .39 (.08)
.47 (.17) 14 / 4,075 .48 (.23)
-
.29 (.14) 41 / 22,389 .33 (.07)
2 / 1,044 .10 (.05) 23 / 10,334
20 / 12,341 .49 (.14) 189 / 148,697
4 / 4,377 .51 (.14) 80 / 87,160
-
18 / 12,743 .35 (.13) 212 / 229,051
.06 (.08) 4 / 2,794 .04 (.00) 2 / 945
.36 (.12) 43 / 15,139 .36 (.16) 10 / 2,774
.39 (.18) 14 / 4,188 .47 (.14) 2 / 531
-
.23 (.10) 20 / 4,847 .32 (.09) 8 / 16,262
M
I R
C S
U N
A
T P
.19 (.11) 34 / 16,697
.11 (.13) 20 / 12,823
.19 (.09) 21 / 14,794
.47 (.15) 266 / 176,199
.41 (.15) 65 / 59,485
.34 (.18) 220 / 214,626
-
.29 (.20) 10 / 2,153
.08 (.01) 5 / 1,472
.23 (.26) 6 / 1,873
.42 (.17) 132 / 67,329
.34 (.10) 29 / 15,991
.39 (.19) 41 / 33,141
-
-.14 (.10) 10 / 2,758 -.14 (.08) 3 / 1,164
.23 (.07) 11 / 2,837 .17 (.00) 6 / 1,386
.13 (.08) 6 / 1,890 .12 (.00) 3 / 1,073
.17 (.09) 6 / 1,908 .20 (.07) 3 / 1,825
.43 (.13) 103 / 60,075 .36 (.12) 112 / 59,160
.45 (.17) 15 / 14,009 .34 (.14) 16 / 9,982
.40 (.17) 38 / 33,010 .42 (.20) 37 / 31,479
-
-.16 (.10) 10 / 2,548
.21 (.14) 13 / 2,375
.09 (.23) 6 / 1,906
.18 (.00) 6 / 1,811
.42 (.15) 123 / 71,996
.42 (.11) 23 / 27,963
.43 (.17) 54 / 59,878
-
E C
C A
Notes. k = Number of correlations; N = Combined sample size = Es mated popula on correla on SD = Standard deviation of estimated population correlation; Rev.-code = Construct is reverse-coded such that a positive correlation represents lower levels of conflict (i.e., more favorable social characteristics). Int. Outside = Interaction outside the organization. E = Extraversion. N =
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 51 Neuroticism. C = Conscientiousness. A = Agreeableness. O = Openness. JSAT = Job satisfaction. ACOM = Affective commitment. SOC = Social characteristics. TASK = Task characteristics.
T P
I R
C S
A
U N
D E
T P
C A
E C
M
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 52
.19 -.20 .18 .29 .07
Job Satisfaction
Task Characteristics Social Characteristics Extraversion Neuroticism Conscientiousness Agreeableness Openness
.51
.019 .017 .011 .057 .001
17.77 15.88 10.71 54.28 1.36
.38*
.178
42.18
.48
.31*
.142
33.65
.25 -.29 .26 .17 .02
.12* -.13* .07 -.04 -.16*
.027 .036 .023 .006 .009
6.42 8.46 5.45 1.55 2.29
.46
.31*
.134
35.51
.50
.33*
.156
41.40
.24 -.23 .25 .29 .11
.08 -.03 .04 .12* -.05
.019 .014 .017 .034 .002
5.06 3.76 4.62 8.98 0.67
AC
CE
(R2 = .376)
Task Characteristics Social Characteristics Extraversion Neuroticism Conscientiousness Agreeableness Openness
PT
Affective Commitment
ED
M
AN
(R2 = .421)
.12 .07 .02 .23* -.05
CR
Extraversion Neuroticism Conscientiousness Agreeableness Openness
US
Social Characteristics (R2 = .105)
IP
T
Table 6 Corrected Meta-Analytic Correlations, Path Coefficients, Relative Weights, and Rescaled Relative Weights (i.e., %R2) across FFM Traits and Outcomes DV Predictors rc B Relative %R2 Weights Task Characteristics Extraversion .21 .10 .020 22.50 2 (R = .091) Neuroticism -.16 -.04 .009 10.34 Conscientiousness .23 .17* .032 35.25 Agreeableness .11 -.03 .003 3.19 * Openness .21 .026 28.72 .13
Notes. *p < .05. DV = Dependent variable. R2 = Total variance explained in the DV. rc = Samplesize weighted corrected meta-correlation. B = Path coefficients. Relative weights = Relative importance of predictors (i.e., the contribution of each predictor to the overall model R2). Relative weights sum to the R2 for the model. %R2 = Rescaled relative weights (i.e., proportion of variance predicted in the DV by each predictor). %R2 sum to 100. We use three-decimal place in this table for relative weights because several numbers would be reported as zero if twodecimal places were used.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 53
Highlights
T
IP
CR US AN M ED PT
CE
All of the “Big Five” personality traits have meaningful relationships with overall job attitudes Each trait predicts job attitudes through distinct pathways underscoring perceived task and/or social job characteristics Traits affect attitudes both via job selection and employee self-selection into settings offering certain design features
AC
Alex L. Rubenstein, Yiwen Zhang, Qing Ma, Hayley Morrison, David F. Jorgensen PII: DOI: Reference:
S0001-8791(19)30036-3 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.02.002 YJVBE 3278
To appear in:
Journal of Vocational Behavior
Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:
22 July 2018 18 January 2019 18 February 2019
Please cite this article as: A.L. Rubenstein, Y. Zhang, Q. Ma, et al., Trait expression through perceived job characteristics: A meta-analytic path model linking personality and job attitudes, Journal of Vocational Behavior, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.02.002
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS
1
Trait Expression through Perceived Job Characteristics: A Meta-Analytic Path Model Linking Personality and Job Attitudes
IP
T
Alex L. Rubenstein, Ph.D. (corresponding author) Department of Management University of Central Florida PO Box 161400 Orlando, FL 32816-1400 E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (206) 818-8223
US
CR
Yiwen Zhang, Ph.D. Faculty of Business and Economics The University of Hong Kong Email: [email protected]
AN
Qing (Kathy) Ma, Ph.D. Division of International Business & Technology Studies Texas A&M International University Email: [email protected]
ED
M
Hayley Morrison Department of Management University of Central Florida Email: [email protected]
CE
PT
David F. Jorgensen Fogelman College of Business and Economics University of Memphis Email: [email protected]
AC
Alex L. Rubenstein is an assistant professor of management at the University of Central Florida. His research interests include employee turnover, challenging “established” facts in management, and individual differences in personality and ability. Yiwen Zhang is an assistant professor of management at the University of Hong Kong. His research interests include leadership, work stress, self and identity, and personnel selection. Qing Ma is an assistant professor of management at Texas A&M International University. Her research interests include employee turnover, job embeddedness, cross-cultural management, and personality. Hayley Morrison is a doctoral student in the management department at the University of Central Florida. Her research interests include individual differences in personality, regulatory focus at work, and creativity.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS
AC
CE
PT
ED
M
AN
US
CR
IP
T
David Jorgensen is a Ph.D. student at the University of Memphis. His research interests include social purpose marketing, international business, and social media in business.
2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS
3
Trait Expression through Perceived Job Characteristics: A Meta-Analytic Path Model Linking Personality and Job Attitudes
IP
T
Abstract
CR
Research has provided considerable support for the dispositional basis of job attitudes. However, the theoretical mechanisms that mediate such personality trait-job attitude
US
relationships have been less forthcoming. Drawing from five-factor theory and self-verification theory, in the present study we developed and tested a meta-analytic path model linking the
AN
five-factor model (FFM) of personality to overall job attitudes (i.e., job satisfaction and affective
M
organizational commitment) through employees’ perceptions of task and social job
ED
characteristics. In doing so, we reveal important work features through which each FFM trait is expressed to shape employee job attitudes. We discuss the implications of our results for both
PT
theory and practice and highlight future research directions for both personality trait and job
AC
CE
attitudes inquiry.
Keywords: job attitudes; personality; work design; meta-analysis
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS
4
Meta-analytic research (e.g., Choi, Oh, & Colbert, 2015; Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002)
IP
T
has established considerable support for the dispositional basis of job attitudes, defined by
CR
Judge and Kammeyer-Mueller as “evaluations of one’s job that express one’s feeling toward, beliefs about, and attachment to one’s job” (2012, p. 343). Across both meta-analyses, specific
US
validities of the five-factor model (FFM) of personality suggests that extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness are associated with higher job satisfaction and affective
AN
organizational commitment, neuroticism is associated with lower levels of both attitudes, and
M
openness is weakly positively associated with affective commitment (no effect was found for
ED
satisfaction). Other studies using alternative frameworks also attest to the utility of dispositions in predicting job attitudes (Arvey, Bouchard, Segal, & Abraham, 1989; Bruk-Lee, Khoury, Nixon,
PT
Goh, & Spector, 2009; Gerhart, 1987; Levin & Stokes, 1989; Staw, Bell, & Clausen, 1986;
CE
Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky, Warren, & de Chermont, 2003), even when traits are measured prior to individuals having had any work experience (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999).
AC
Still, much remains to be understood as to precisely how and why personality traits predict job attitudes. Prior work has primarily attended to establishing trait-attitude relationships, or evaluating the situational conditions under which trait expression is facilitated or inhibited in influencing attitudes (e.g., using person-job fit, trait activation, or situation strength approaches). For instance, Harari, Thompson and Viswesvaran (2018) found that extraversion more strongly predicted job satisfaction when employees attained status-related
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS
5
goals, whereas Christiansen, Sliter, and Frost (2014) showed that employees tended to be less satisfied at work when performing job tasks incongruent with their dispositions. Although such moderation tests yield important insights into the bounded nature of these relationships, it is also important to understand the explanatory processes underlying trait-attitude effects.
IP
T
Indeed, even if all employees in a sample are performing the same work (i.e., holding the job
CR
constant), there still often exists appreciable variance in work environment perceptions, implying that such variability is, to a meaningful extent, person-driven (e.g., Brown, Pierce, &
US
Crossley, 2014). As such, many researchers (e.g., Brief, 1998; Choi et al., 2015; Erdheim, Wang, & Zickar, 2006; Heller, Judge, & Watson, 2002; Spector, 1997; Srivastava, Locke, Judge, &
AN
Adams, 2010) have detailed this need to operationalize mediators of trait-attitude
M
relationships. For instance, Heller and colleagues noted, “this need has been voiced
ED
repeatedly…however, relatively little progress has been made” (2002, p. 831). Thus, while we can appreciate the body of scholarship demonstrating how situational factors moderate trait-
PT
attitude relationships, this does not preclude the possibility that such characteristics may
CE
mediate the relationship, and that delineating such mechanisms can help account for the unique reasons why each FFM trait predicts attitudes.
AC
In this study, we examine how perceived task and social job characteristics mediate the relationships between FFM traits and job attitudes. Our intention is not to question the predictive importance of trait-attitude relationships, but instead to explicitly model—and thereby help to better understand—how and why personality traits are related to job attitudes. To accomplish this, we develop and test a meta-analytic path model. We position the dependent variable of job attitudes as a higher-order factor indicated by job satisfaction and
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS
6
affective organizational commitment, given extant studies which argue that these specific attitudes represent the crux of individuals’ emotional employment attachment, and because they show considerable conceptual and empirical overlap (Chang, Rosen, & Levy, 2009; Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006; Le, Schmidt, Harter, & Lauver, 2010). We propose a key
IP
T
reason why traits predict job attitudes is because traits influence employees’ perceptions of
CR
task and social characteristics at work. Work design research has suggested that managers are largely influential to the extent that they design and manage meaning in their employees’ work
US
(Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006; Smircich & Morgan, 1982). In addition to this top-down influence of selection or environmental intervention, the gravitational hypothesis (Judge et al., 1999; Wilk,
AN
Desmarais, & Sackett, 1995) proposes that individuals might also self-select into work
M
environments commensurate with their dispositions.
ED
We ground our conceptual model in five-factor theory (Costa & McCrae, 1992; McCrae & Costa, 2008) and self-verification theory (Heider, 1958; Swann, 1983) to propose that each
PT
FFM trait elicits particular perceptions of job characteristics that align with one’s self-
CE
conceptions, and consequently, that job characteristics perceptions positively predict attitudes (Fried & Ferris, 1987; Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007). In testing our model, we meta-
AC
analyzed a large dataset of 819 independent samples. Personality Traits and Trait Expression
According to five-factor theory (Costa & McCrae, 1992), personality consists of “…relatively enduring patterns of thoughts, feelings, and actions…” (McCrae & Costa, 2008, p. 160), and traits represent basic psychological tendencies or density distributions of these patterns. Though various trait typologies abound, it has become well-accepted that the FFM,
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS
7
consisting of extraversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness, can most comprehensively account for the variance in “what people are” and “how people differ” (Digman, 1990). Moreover, since their initial labeling by Tupes and Christal (1961), the dimensionality of the FFM has been extensively replicated (John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008). It
IP
T
has also shown considerable utility to management research.
CR
Extraversion is described in terms of characteristic adaptations of sociability and assertiveness, and at its core, the trait is denoted by positive emotionality (Costa & McCrae,
US
1992; John, 1990). Neuroticism is related to (mal)adaptations of anxiety and nervousness, and is associated with negative emotionality (Clark & Watson, 1999; John, 1990). Conscientiousness
AN
tends to be expressed in adaptations of dutifulness and dependability. Such individuals are
M
reliable, detail-oriented, and motivated to achieve (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Agreeableness
ED
describes those who are compassionate, warm, and compliant. Some scholars have alternately characterized agreeableness as likability (Borgatta, 1964) or prosociality (Graziano, Habashi,
PT
Sheese, & Tobin, 2007). Fifth, openness is associated with characteristic adaptations of curiosity
CE
and spontaneity, and describes those who enjoy thinking about intellectual ideas, who
2005).
AC
appreciate beauty, and who are sensitive to their inner feelings (DeYoung, Peterson, & Higgins,
Because five-factor theory proposes that the genesis of human action resides in the individual, it is suggested that attitudes, at least in part, reside in individuals as well (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Judge & Hulin, 1993). Support for this idea is found in the stability of attitudes over time (Staw & Ross, 1985), strong trait heritability effects (Kandler, Riemann, & Kämpfe, 2009), substantial validities of traits predicting attitudes (Choi et al., 2015; Judge et al., 2002),
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS
8
genetic markers for attitudes (Song, Li, & Arvey, 2011), and in behavioral genetics studies of identical twins reared apart, who report similar attitudes and preferences (Arvey et al., 1989; Johnson, Turkheimer, Gottesman, & Bouchard, 2009). Mediators Linking Personality Traits and Job Attitudes
T
Why, though, do personality traits influence job attitudes? Five-factor theory proposes
IP
that traits are expressed through characteristic adaptations, which are patterns of thoughts,
CR
feelings, and action tendencies that affect cognitive and affective environmental reactions
US
(McCrae & Costa, 2008). That is, traits influence both how people perceive and how they proactively engage with their environments (Higgins & Scholer, 2008). Following Five-factor
AN
theory, we invoke the term trait expression to describe the process of how traits, as abstract
M
psychological potentials, translate into observable manifestations in the personality system
ED
(McCrae & Costa, 2008), rather than similar terms such as trait activation, which relates to interactionist approaches asking whether traits are predictive depending on certain contextual
PT
features being absent/present (Tett & Burnett, 2003). One central action tendency of trait
CE
expression is that of personal strivings, which at work, foster implicit desires for various motivational job characteristics (Barrick, Mount, & Li, 2013). However, not all traits are
AC
associated with the same strivings. Indeed, because the underlying basis of each trait is unique, so too will preferences for certain job characteristics for each trait be distinct. To account for which characteristics are associated with each trait, we are guided by self-verification theory. According to self-verification theory (Heider, 1958; Swann, 1983), once a person gains an understanding of who he or she is, they strive to confirm such self-conceptions through their preferences for and selection of life experiences. The process has been termed the selective
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS
9
interaction hypothesis, emphasizing that people are motivated to seek out situations and relationships that provide them with self-verifying feedback. For example, in an experiment by Swann, Stein-Seroussi, and Giesler (1992), the authors showed that those with positive selfviews were more likely to prefer interacting with an evaluator who had appraised their
IP
T
confidence and competence favorably, whereas those with negative self-views preferred
CR
evaluators who had appraised them unfavorably. In the vocational literature, Wiesenfeld, Swann, Brockner, and Bartel (2007) found that fair treatment predicted higher organizational
US
commitment for those with high self-esteem, but lower commitment for those with low selfesteem. Evidence supporting self-verification has been observed in myriad other studies
AN
(Swann et al., 2003); however, most of this work has tended to focus on self-esteem. Thus, the
M
present study offers an opportunity to more comprehensively illustrate self-verification effects
ED
by examining the FFM of personality traits.
Combining tenets of five-factor theory with those of self-verification theory leads us to
PT
the general proposition that higher levels of a given personality trait will be associated with
CE
gravitation toward and greater perceptions of job characteristics that provide self-verification of the adjectival descriptors underlying that trait. Subsequently, we expect that higher
AC
perceived job characteristics will have a positive relationship with job attitudes (Hackman & Oldham, 1975; Humphrey et al., 2007). Central to our theorizing is that the mediated pattern linking each FFM trait to job attitudes via job characteristics will be unique because each trait is expressed through action tendencies that lead higher subjective evaluations of different work design characteristics.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 10 We base our selection of perceived job characteristics using the theoretical frameworks offered by Morgeson and Humphrey (2006), Humphrey et al. (2007), and Barrick et al. (2013) focusing on task and social characteristics. These and other primary studies have shown task and social aspects of work enrichment to be distinct, and to uniquely predict job attitudes. We
IP
T
do not examine knowledge characteristics like information processing or specialization, or work
CR
context characteristics like physical demands or ergonomics, partly due to lack of theoretical guidance linking FFM traits to these variables, but also due to their general dearth of empirical
US
study. Perceived Task Characteristics
AN
We operationalize perceived task characteristics using five core constructs that facilitate
M
intrinsic work enrichment, thereby enhancing outcomes such as job attitudes (as well as
ED
intrinsic motivation and performance) (Fried & Ferris, 1987; Hackman & Oldham, 1975; Humphrey et al., 2007). They are: variety, identity, significance, autonomy, and feedback.
PT
Variety is the degree to which employees are able to perform different tasks on the job and
CE
utilize different skills and talents; identity is the degree to which a job allows individuals to complete a whole, identifiable piece of work, thereby allowing one to see the tangible results of
AC
his/her labor; significance is how much a job meaningfully impacts beneficiaries; autonomy is how much a job offers discretion, control, and decision latitude in how to perform one’s work— and more specifically, the methods, intensity, and pace of work; last, feedback is the degree to which a job provides recognition or performance information. Research supports a unidimensional structure regarding these characteristics (Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Loher, Noe, Moeller, & Fitzgerald, 1985), and studies typically combine them into a single index, called a
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 11 motivating potential score (Hackman & Oldham, 1975; Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006). Perceived Social Characteristics Social characteristics describe perceptions of work environments that facilitate positive
IP
T
interpersonal relationships between an employee and others within and outside an
CR
organization. As argued by Humphrey et al. (2007), social work design can improve employee attitudes largely because affiliation with others, or “getting along”, is a fundamental human
US
need (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Hogan & Holland, 2003) and fulfilling this need can buffer against work stress, improve motivation, and facilitate goal achievement (Asendorpf & Wilpers,
AN
1998; Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008). Consistent with Humphrey et al., we examined four positive
M
social characteristics: social support, which involves obtaining assistance/advice from others
ED
and having others available to listen, task interdependence, which involves dealing with others such as in a team setting or doing work that requires the involvement of multiple individuals
PT
coming together as a collective, interaction outside the organization, which involves contact
CE
and communication with non-organizational stakeholders, and feedback from others, which involves interpersonal feedback rather than feedback from the job. Though not explicitly
AC
considered by Humphrey et al., we also examine one negative social characteristic, interpersonal conflict or social antagonism, as an adverse aspect of social work design (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998; Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008). Taken together, favorable levels of perceived social characteristics describe an environment that is interpersonally enriching and offers positive social interactions. Consistent with Piccolo and Colquitt (2006) (see also Griffin, Bateman, Wayne, & Head,
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 12 1987), we propose that higher job attitudes need not derive from greater actual levels of the aforementioned characteristics, but rather on employees’ subjective perceptions about the degree to which they are present at work. That is, job characteristics need not be objectively present in order to influence attitudes, but rather so long as employees perceive them to be
IP
T
present, they will exert positive effects (Fried & Ferris, 1987; Humphrey et al., 2007).
CR
Hypotheses Extraversion
US
We expect extraversion to positively predict job attitudes through employee’s selfverification of both task and social perceived job characteristics. Extraversion is partly described
AN
in terms of leadership-striving and assertiveness (Costa & McCrae, 1992; DeYoung, Quilty, &
M
Peterson, 2007), which accentuate how extraverts strive to pursue status and agency by taking
ED
advantage of developmental and challenging work opportunities (Barrick, Stewart, & Piotrowski, 2002). For instance, extraverts are likely to perceive higher significance and identity
PT
because such characteristics provide verification that one performs prestigious work. Similarly,
CE
variety and autonomy offer opportunities for responsibility typical of leaders, and feedback
2003).
AC
provides diagnostic information on one’s relative performance (i.e., status) (Hogan & Holland,
Because extraversion is also described in terms of social forwardness or activity (John & Srivastava, 1999), we also expect perceived social characteristics to mediate the link between extraversion and job attitudes. In five-factor theory, those more extraverted express characteristic adaptations of seeking out supportive friendships and interdependent relationships both at work and outside of the organization with those who share similar tastes
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 13 (McCrae & Costa, 2008). However, one caveat is that the underlying social motives associated with extraversion tend to not be purely affiliative (John et al., 2008). Rather, extraverts more often seek out relationships to “get ahead”, such as to exert influence or to demonstrate dominance (Hogan, Rybicki, Motowidlo, & Borman, 1998). Still, regardless of one’s motives, it
IP
T
stands to reason that extraverts will be more apt to perceive greater social support/interaction,
CR
interdependence, and feedback from others, and will report lower levels of interpersonal conflict.
US
Hypothesis 1: The positive relationship between extraversion and job attitudes is mediated by perceived task (H1-a) and social (H1-b) job characteristics.
AN
Neuroticism
M
We next hypothesize a negative trend for neuroticism’s relationship with job attitudes,
ED
also mediated by both perceived task and social job characteristics. As self-verification theory suggests that people tend to gravitate toward situations that reinforce their self-concepts
PT
(Swann, Wenzlaff, Krull, & Pelham, 1992; Wilk et al., 1995), neurotics who are anxious,
CE
pessimistic, and volatile will express this trait by associating themselves with similar others. Studies show that, on average, neurotic individuals tend to have unfulfilling social interactions
AC
in multiple life domains and, simply put, do not get along well with others (John & Srivastava, 1999; Watson & Clark, 1997). This would imply a negative relationship between neuroticism and perceptions of social support, interdependence, and productive interactions outside of the organization, as well as perceiving greater levels of interpersonal conflict. Moreover, given that neuroticism is underpinned by being nervous, tense, and worrisome, those exhibiting high levels of the trait will be reluctant report perceiving much interpersonal feedback from others,
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 14 first because doing so necessitates greater interaction, and second, because neurotics tend to be pessimistic that such feedback will be valuable or positive (Zhong, Cao, Huo, Chen, & Lam, 2012). Indeed, studies show that neuroticism is associated with greater escape-avoidance coping and prevention-focused cognition (Kammeyer-Mueller, Judge, & Scott, 2009). Thus, we
IP
T
hypothesize that perceived social characteristics mediates a negative link between neuroticism
CR
and job attitudes.
We also propose a negative relationship between neuroticism and perceived task
US
characteristics, subsequently influencing job attitudes. As noted above, because anxiety and pessimism are at the core of neuroticism (John et al., 2008), such individuals are likely to adopt
AN
prevention- and withdrawal-based coping styles (Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2009), suggesting a
M
negative relationship with job feedback. Moreover, studies suggest that neurotic individuals
ED
tend to be less motivated to perform and to set goals (Judge & Ilies, 2002), are less engaged at work (Young, Glerum, Wang, & Joseph, 2018), and are more likely to ruminate on work
PT
stressors than to seek out motivating or fulfilling opportunities (Nolan, Roberts, & Gotlib, 1998).
CE
In this regard, we expect that neurotic employees will be less inclined to perceive that they
autonomy.
AC
perform complex or challenging work that offers identity, significance, task variety, and
Hypothesis 2: The negative relationship between neuroticism and job attitudes is mediated by perceived task (H2-a) and social (H2-b) job characteristics. Conscientiousness Conscientiousness is primarily expressed via self-verification through achievement, as such workers exhibit characteristic adaptations of industriousness and aspirations to build
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 15 expertise, along with being driven to perform and demonstrate competence (DeYoung et al., 2007; Judge & Ilies, 2002; Organ & Lingl, 1995). Conscientious individuals are self-starters, have a strong volition to achieve, and are apt to engage in greater goal-setting behavior (Barrick et al., 2002; Judge & Ilies, 2002). All of these factors would suggest positive links between
IP
T
conscientiousness and perceived task characteristics of variety, identity, and significance, which
CR
give a sense that work offers more purpose/meaning (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Humphrey et al., 2007). Similarly, conscientiousness should be related to greater perceptions of autonomy,
US
as such individuals who are more responsible and organized are more likely to aspire toward self-verifying opportunities to demonstrate their diligence in complex situations where one
AN
must work independently (McCrae & Costa, 2008). In addition, conscientious employees are
M
more apt to seek out job feedback, to ascertain whether they have succeeded in pursuit of
ED
achievement goals (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Van Den Berg & Feij, 2003). As a result of perceiving greater levels of task characteristics, conscientious employees should report more positive job
PT
attitudes.
CE
Hypothesis 3: The positive relationship between conscientiousness and job attitudes is mediated by perceived task job characteristics.
AC
Agreeableness
Judge et al. (2002) found a modest zero-order effect between agreeableness and job satisfaction ( = .17), whereas Choi et al. (2015) found that agreeableness exhibited the strongest zero-order relationship with affective commitment among FFM traits ( = .31). To explain such effects, we focus centrally on the mediating role of perceived social characteristics.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 16 Since agreeableness is associated with characteristic adaptations of trust, empathy, and cooperation (McCrae & Costa, 2008), and denotes a preference for interpersonal harmony (Goldberg, 1992), agreeable employees are likely to self-verify through perceiving social aspects of work design. Agreeable people are conflict-avoidant, are foremost motivated to get along
IP
T
with others rather than get ahead, and tend to seek out positive, supportive interpersonal
CR
relationships as an end in itself (Hogan & Blickle, 2013). Templer (2012) asserted that agreeable individuals are more satisfied precisely because they are “involve[d] in pleasant and satisfying
US
relationships with others” (2012, p. 118). Thus, at work, we expect that agreeable employees will perceive greater levels of socially supportive, interdependent experiences with coworkers,
AN
supervisors, and external stakeholders, greater feedback from others, and fewer interpersonal
M
frictions (Barrick et al., 2002, 2013), and that higher perceptions of such positive affiliative
ED
factors will elicit greater job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment. Hypothesis 4: The positive relationship between agreeableness and job attitudes is
PT
mediated by perceived social job characteristics.
CE
Openness
The conceptual linkage between openness and job attitudes has remained somewhat of
AC
a puzzle. Judge et al. (2002) found no relationship ( = .02) between openness and job satisfaction, whereas Choi et al. (2015) found a weak positive relationship between openness and affective commitment ( = .09). However, Choi et al. theorized that openness is related to “higher levels of need for variety and novelty” (2015, p. 1544) and, citing Dragoni, Oh, Vankatwyk, and Tesluk (2011), described how open employees have a greater preference to seek out diverse work experiences. We therefore might account for a positive relationship
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 17 linking openness to job attitudes insofar as open employees will perceive greater task characteristics. More open individuals also have characteristic adaptations of cognitive exploration, working with abstract concepts, and exhibit higher need for cognition (DeYoung et al., 2005;
IP
T
Sadowski & Cogburn, 1997), whereas those lower on the trait are more comfortable with the
CR
status quo. Empirically, Judge and Cable (1997) found support for the idea that open employees tend to be attracted to innovative work offering creative discretion (i.e., autonomy) and where
US
they can pursue diverse interests (i.e., variety). Similarly, Mount and colleagues (2005) found that openness predicted attraction to artistic work offering significance, identity, and
AN
autonomous opportunities, and George and Zhou (2000) theorized that because individuals
M
high on openness are more attuned to their feelings, they are likely to be more sensitive to task
ED
feedback (of both positive and negative valence). Because open individuals are thinkers (i.e., openness is often referred to as "Intellect" or "Culture"; Digman, 1990; DeYoung et al., 2007),
PT
we expect that more open employees will gravitate toward enriched, challenging work (i.e.,
CE
greater task characteristics) as it offers opportunities for self-verification via growth, divergent
attitudes.
AC
thinking, and intellectual expression, and that perceiving such characteristics will foster positive
Hypothesis 5: The positive relationship between openness and job attitudes is mediated by perceived task job characteristics (H5). Method
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 18 Primary Article Literature Search We took two steps to derive correlations used as input for our meta-analytic matrix. First, if estimates were available from previous meta-analyses, we used such estimates. Second, if estimates were not available, we performed original meta-analyses. Meta-analytic estimates
T
among FFM traits were obtained from van der Linden, te Nijenhuis, & Bakker (2010), which
IP
provides the most up-to-date assessment in normal adult populations and are consistent with
CR
the Mount et al. (2005) estimate, which omit clinical scales used for mental illness diagnoses,
US
such as those from Ones, Viswesvaran, and Reiss (1996). FFM-job satisfaction correlations were taken from Judge et al. (2002). For the meta-analytic correlation between job satisfaction and
AN
affective organizational commitment, we used the value obtained by Harrison, et al., (2006). In
M
addition, because the timing of our initial literature search overlapped with Choi et al. (2015),
ED
we independently meta-analyzed these effects, and our search yielded a considerable number of studies that they did not include.
PT
We searched for potential primary articles to include up to mid-2018 using PsycINFO,
CE
JSTOR, ISI Web of Science, Business Source Premier, and Google Scholar, seeking publications as well as unpublished dissertations/theses (found through ProQuest). We also conducted a
AC
manual search of journals (e.g., Journal of Applied Psychology, Academy of Management Journal, Personnel Psychology, Journal of Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Journal of Vocational Behavior). Our search included specific terms for each cell not previously meta-analyzed. For the FFM, we used the search terms Big Five, extraversion, extroversion, neuroticism, emotional stability, conscientiousness, agreeableness, openness, and intellect. For mediators, we used the following search terms: For perceived task characteristics, we searched for variables following
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 19 the job characteristics model, or “VISAF” framework, with the search terms variety, identity, autonomy, job control, discretion, decision latitude, significance, and feedback. We also coded for the broader terms job characteristic, task characteristic, as well as motivating potential, job complexity, and job skill, as these variables have often been used interchangeably to denote job
T
characteristic composites. However, complexity and skill variables were only included if they
IP
were veritable composite or aggregate measures of the VISAF framework. For perceived social
CR
characteristics, we used the search terms social support, relationship quality, interdependence, social integration, interaction outside organization, feedback from others, and interpersonal
US
conflict. We did not include perceived organizational support or organizational commitment as
AN
indicators here because we were interested in dyadic affiliative indicators, rather than broader targets (and affective commitment is our dependent variable). Lastly, we used three search terms
M
for attitudes: job satisfaction, work satisfaction, and commitment. For commitment, we only
ED
coded affective commitment to one’s organization. We did not include measures of normative, continuance, or career commitment, or measures of career or life satisfaction.
PT
Inclusion Criteria and Screening
CE
A number of additional inclusion rules were set. First, we excluded articles that were not empirical or quantitative in nature. Second, we excluded articles not reporting bivariate effects,
AC
or those that did not offer data that could be used to create an effect size (e.g., studies reporting univariate proportions, or means without standard deviations). Third, we excluded studies that only measured momentary or short-term attitudinal states, instead favoring overall attitudinal evaluations (i.e., how a person felt over the past week versus how they generally feel). Fourth, only articles that measured personality traits within the FFM framework were included. Fifth, we excluded studies reporting nested, unit-level, or group-level effects, as it may be inappropriate to
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 20 combine such estimates with individual-level results (Ostroff & Harrison, 1999). Sixth, we excluded non-employee participant samples, to isolate how personality traits are associated with task and/or social characteristics and attitudes specifically in work contexts. Seventh, only articles published in the English language were included.
T
Our search yielded 24,596 total articles across databases, many of which were duplicates.
IP
Following our inclusion criteria, we narrowed this figure down to a qualifying pool of 4,103
CR
articles. We entered these studies into the Zotero references software to more thoroughly check articles for potential inclusion. This process resulted in a final 819 independent coded samples
US
(728 published and 91 unpublished). Given the substantial number of articles generated, we only
AN
include articles cited in text in the References section. A full list of references and primary study information is included as an online appendix.
M
Coding Procedures and Common Measures
ED
A five-person team composed of faculty and advanced doctoral students with
PT
experience in personality and management research searched for and coded articles. Each initially coded five articles at a time to check for agreement and clarify procedures, after which
CE
inconsistencies were discussed. Next, the team independently coded the remaining studies.
AC
Any ambiguities or questions during coding were noted and resolved in twice-monthly meetings (e.g., whether a given measure was a codeable operationalization of a given trait). After coding was completed, the first and fourth authors went through all articles collected a second time to ensure coding accuracy, finding 24 instances of previous improper coding (e.g., numerical typos in 20 cases, and four of improper coding for the tripartite model of commitment rather than only affective).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 21 Primary studies were coded for sample size, reliability metrics (Cronbach’s alpha was used in 90.23% of cases, with split-half, Spearman-Brown, or composite reliability reported in a minority of studies), effect sizes (in all cases, correlations), and manuscript source (published article versus dissertation/thesis). In cases where multiple construct operationalizations were
IP
T
included in one sample (e.g., autonomy and task variety, or each of the five task
CR
characteristics), we followed Hunter & Schmidt’s (2004) recommendation to compute composite correlations. In 62 samples, reliability metrics were not reported, and so following
US
past approaches (e.g., Choi et al., 2015), the mean reliability across primary studies for that variable was inputted.
AN
Big Five Personality Traits. The most common trait measures were the NEO-FFI (Costa
M
& McCrae, 1992), Goldberg’s (1992) mini-markers, and the International Personality Item Pool
ED
(Goldberg, 1999). Across measures, mean reliabilities ( ) were: Extraversion = .80, Neuroticism = .82, Conscientiousness = .81, Agreeableness = .76, and Openness = .75.
PT
Perceived Job Characteristics. We coded both task and social perceived job
CE
characteristics. For task characteristics ( = .81, common measures of autonomy/variety included Hackman and Oldham’s (1980) Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS), or ad hoc measures of
AC
discretion or decision latitude. Feedback, task identity and significance were mostly assessed with measures from the JDS, and to a lesser degree, Morgeson and Humphrey’s (2006) questionnaire. Further, we identified 125 studies that used the motivating potential score index to measure task characteristics. For social characteristics ( = .76), as noted in our literature search, multiple variables comprised this category, such as social support, interdependence (focusing on task or goal interdependence and dealing with others, but not outcome
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 22 interdependence), feedback from others, interaction outside the organization, and interpersonal conflict (reverse-coded). Job Attitudes. Job satisfaction measures included both global and faceted approaches. Most commonly, studies used the Satisfaction With Work scale from the Job Description Index
IP
T
(Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969), the Job Satisfaction Survey (Spector, 1997), or an adaptation of
CR
Hackman and Oldham’s (1975) JDS, which also measures satisfaction. When multiple satisfaction facets were assessed, we computed composite correlations. For affective
US
commitment, over 45% of studies used Allen and Meyer’s (1990) measure, whereas the Mowday, Steers and Porter (1979) scale was second-most common measure. The mean = .85 and for affective commitment,
AN
reliability for job satisfaction was
M
Meta-Analytic Procedures
= .83.
ED
We used Hunter and Schmidt’s (2004) random effects meta-analytic approach. Our results include a sample size-weighted estimate of the uncorrected correlation for each meta-
PT
analytic relationship ( ), the reliability-corrected population estimate ( ), and the 95%
CE
confidence interval around . Corrections due to attenuation in reliability were performed using values reported in each study. If not directly provided in a study, we used the mean
AC
reliability ( ) across all studies for that variable. We also report the number of studies (k) and the cumulative sample size (N) for each meta-analytic effect. Lastly, in an effort to be comprehensive, we report standard deviations of corrected meta-analytic correlations (SD ) as well as 80% credibility intervals. Whereas confidence intervals estimate confidence in the population correlation, credibility intervals describe variation in the sampling distribution of primary studies, where 80% of values in primary studies are contained within the credibility
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 23 interval (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). Relationships between FFM traits and the mediators, as well as between mediators and attitudes, are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Because we also conducted an original meta-analysis between FFM and affective commitment, these results are also reported in Table 1.
CR
---------------------------------------
IP
Insert Tables 1 and 2 about here
T
---------------------------------------
Analyses
US
We followed the theory testing approach outlined by Viswesvaran and Ones (1995),
AN
which combines meta-analysis with structural equations modeling (SEM). The approach consists of seven steps. Steps 1 (identify constructs), 2 (identify operational measures), 3 (locate
M
studies), and 4 (estimate true correlations) have been discussed, so we move to steps 5–7, and
ED
estimate structural coefficients based on the reliability-corrected correlations, to obtain the best-fitting model to the data. The complete matrix containing correlations ( , ), the number
PT
of samples per relationship (k), and the meta-analytic sample size for each relationship (N), are
AC
CE
seen in Table 3.
-----------------------------Insert Table 3 about here ------------------------------
Correlations were used as input into the SEM, and were tested using Mplus version 8 (Muthén & Muthén, 2010). Because summary data (i.e., correlations) do not yield standard errors for significance tests, in line with previous meta-analyses (e.g., Judge & Ilies, 2002; Judge, Jackson, Shaw, Scott, & Rich, 2007), we used the median sample size (N = 316) of primary study
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 24 effects for path analyses.1 To test hypotheses, we undertook a conservative approach in which we modeled paths from FFM traits to a latent overall job attitude (OJA) factor through both mediators, as well as specifying direct effects from each trait to OJA. We controlled for the links between FFM traits and job attitudes to account for alternative explanatory paths (MacKinnon,
IP
T
Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002). Indirect effects were tested for significance using
CR
the Monte Carlo Method for Assessing Mediation (Selig & Preacher, 2008), which uses parameter estimates from the first- and second-stage models paths and their associated
US
asymptotic variances/covariance to simulate estimates of their joint distribution and computes a product term. This distribution is then used to estimate a 95% confidence interval.
AN
We allowed the mediators to covary, though not specifying causality. We evaluated
M
model fit using recommendations offered by Bollen (1989), Hu and Bentler (1999), and Marsh,
ED
Hau, and Wen (2004) by using the chi-square statistic (χ2), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), TuckerLewis Index (TLI), Standardized Root-Mean-Square Residual (SRMR), and the Root Mean-Square
PT
Error of Approximation (RMSEA) indices. Because χ2 is especially sensitive to sample size (Kline,
CE
2005), it is best used only for comparison purposes, rather than to assess absolute fit. Results
AC
Before delving into the path model results, we note some select effects. This is the first meta-analysis linking the FFM to perceived task/social characteristics. For social characteristics,
1
We used the median sample size of primary studies as our interest was in generalizing to the average study. An alternative approach sometimes used by researchers is to use the harmonic mean across cells in the meta-analytic correlation matrix as a means of generalizing to the population of studies. Based on the suggestion of an anonymous reviewer, we also estimated our path model using the harmonic mean (N = 27,778). Of course, this approach does not influence effect sizes, but does affect standard errors, and all indirect effects became significant at p < .01. Granted, one could argue that using the much smaller median sample size provides a far more conservative test of hypotheses.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 25 across all traits, agreeableness ( = .29) exhibited the strongest absolute effect, followed by extraversion ( = .19) and neuroticism ( = -.20). For task characteristics, conscientiousness ( = .23), had the strongest absolute effect, followed by openness ( = .21) and extraversion ( = .21).
IP
T
Since path coefficients were not specified directly to each job attitude, but rather to a latent overall job attitude (OJA) factor, this model is not fully saturated. The hypothesized
CR
model fit the data adequately: χ2(8) = 15.48 (p < .05), CFI = .98, TLI = .91, SRMR = .02, RMSEA =
US
.07. Standardized measurement model factor loadings for OJA were as follows: job satisfaction, λ = .80, and affective commitment, λ = .75. Both factor loadings are significant at p < .01.
AN
Figure 1 depicts the SEM path coefficients and variable R2, and Table 4 shows the effects
M
decomposition linking the FFM traits to OJA via the perceived job characteristics mediators. ---------------------------------------
ED
Insert Figure 1 and Table 4 about here ---------------------------------------
PT
For extraversion (Hypothesis 1), we did not find a significant indirect effect for perceived
CE
social (95% indirect effect confidence interval [CI] = -.004-.10, ns) or task characteristics (CI = .01-.10, ns). Thus, H1-a and H1-b were not supported. However, we did observe a significant
AC
and positive direct relationship between extraversion and OJA (γ = .13, p < .05). For Hypothesis 2 concerning neuroticism, neither perceived social (CI = -.08-.02, ns) nor task characteristics mediated paths (CI = -.07-.04, ns) were significant. As such, we do not find support for H2-a or H2-b. However, we did observe a significant negative direct relationship between neuroticism and OJA (γ = -.12, p < .05). That extraversion and neuroticism had significant direct effects is noteworthy, an issue to which we return in the Discussion.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 26 Hypothesis 3 proposed a mediated link from conscientiousness to OJA via perceived task characteristics. As shown in Table 4, this hypothesis was supported (CI = .02-.14, p < .05). Hypotheses 4 linked agreeableness to OJA through perceived social characteristics. This indirect path was significant, supporting the hypothesis (CI = .05-.15, p < .05).
IP
T
Lastly, Hypothesis 5 linked openness to job attitudes via perceived task characteristics.
CR
As shown in Table 4, this indirect path was significant (CI = .01-.12, p < .05). Thus, H5 is supported. We also observed a significant direct effect of openness on OJA (γ = -.15, p < .01).
US
Supplemental Analyses
Although theory suggests that various perceived task and social job characteristics can
AN
be clustered (e.g., Humphrey et al., 2007; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006), to justify grouping each
M
characteristic into its respective category, we conducted a series of subgroup analyses in which
ED
we separately meta-analyzed 11 additional path models using each of the 10 specific task and social characteristics as mediators (see Table 5 for the basis of these effects), as well as one
PT
based on studies using the overall motivating potential score task characteristics index. These
CE
models assess each perceived work design characteristic (e.g., autonomy, significance, social support, and interpersonal conflict) as mediators, with the other perceived job characteristics
AC
assessed generally, in order to examine whether our results hold across each specific job characteristic. One of these models, for example, links the FFM traits to perceived social characteristics and autonomy at the first stage, and perceived social characteristics and autonomy to OJA at the second stage, whereas another links the FFM to perceived task characteristics and social support at the first stage, and task characteristics and social support to OJA at the second. The 11th model links the FFM to motivating potential and social
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 27 characteristics at the first stage, and these mediators to OJA at the second. Though we do not provide the full empirical results from these analyses in text, we note that in all but one case (54/55 tests), the conclusions from the specific models mirrored that of the hypothesized general model. The only divergent case was where extraversion had a significant and positive
IP
T
indirect on OJA through interdependence.
CR
Second, to provide further insights into our findings, we also conducted relative weights analyses, shown in Table 6, which examines the unique contribution (i.e., the proportion of
US
variance in a mediator or endogenous dependent variable explained by individual predictors) of each FFM trait to predicting perceived task and social characteristics and job attitudes, as well
AN
as the contributions of perceived task and social characteristics to predicting attitudes. As
M
shown in the table, conscientiousness and openness account for the greatest variance in task
ED
characteristics (35.25% and 28.72%, respectively), agreeableness explained by far the most variance in predicting perceived social characteristics (54.28%), and task/social characteristics
PT
contributed most to predicting attitudes (75.83% for job satisfaction and 76.91% for affective
AC
by dispositions.
CE
commitment), though this also implies around a quarter of the variance in attitudes is explained
--------------------------------------Insert Tables 5 and 6 about here ---------------------------------------
Third, we considered whether our estimates differed whether the data were collected in a cross-sectional or longitudinal design. Of note, we only coded for longitudinal effects that were consistent with our theorized effect sequences. Across the 819 samples, 96 (11.72%) used a longitudinal design. The results of these tests largely were again quite similar to the
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 28 hypothesized model, with only two divergent cases: in the cross-sectional model, extraversion had an additional significant indirect effect through social characteristics, and in the longitudinal model, the indirect effect of openness through task characteristics was not statistically significant2
IP
T
Fourth, though prior work has supported treating attitudes or “morale” as a latent
CR
factor composed of job satisfaction and affective commitment (e.g., Chang et al., 2009; Harrison et al., 2006; Le et al., 2010), to defend this approach, we also estimated two observed
US
variable models using only satisfaction and only commitment as dependent variables. Generally speaking, the conclusions from these models were nearly identical to each other and to the
AN
latent attitude factor model. However, in the commitment-only model, agreeableness had an
M
additional significant positive direct effect to attitudes, and the openness-commitment direct
ED
effect was not significant.
Discussion
PT
The purpose of this study was to model how perceived task and social job characteristics
CE
theoretically account for how and why personality traits are expressed in shaping job attitudes. Our results show that all of the FFM traits exhibited non-zero relationships with overall job
AC
attitudes, yet the pathway(s) by which each trait is expressed to predict attitudes are unique. Our results help to better understand personality trait expression at work. For extraversion, we only observed a positive direct extraversion-OJA effect. In hindsight, this linkage might be accounted for by the intrinsic connection between extraversion and positive emotionality (Costa & McCrae, 1992; DeYoung, Quilty, & Peterson, 2007; Gray, 1994; Larsen & 2
Complete results of the specific task and social characteristics models, and the cross-sectional and longitudinal models, are available from the first author by request.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 29 Ketelaar, 1991; Watson & Clark, 1997): Research has found that extraversion is denoted by a behavioral activation system, such that the trait is associated with higher sensitivity to positive reward stimuli (Depue & Collins, 1999). As such, this might explain why extraverts are prone toward higher job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment. Related theoretical
IP
T
work (Judge, Locke, & Durham, 1997) has posited a link between personality traits and job
CR
attitudes via an “emotional generalization” process, whereby the affective undertones denoted by a given trait—here, extraversion with positive affectivity—can spill over into commensurate
US
attitudinal evaluations in other domains. That is, because extraverts tend to experience greater positive emotions, they are also naturally apt to rate their jobs and organizations in more
AN
favorable lights.
M
For neuroticism, contrary to expectations, the only significant path to OJA was its direct
ED
effect. Perhaps more than any other trait, neuroticism is affective in nature (Larsen & Ketelaar, 1991). Juxtaposed against extraversion’s activation system, neuroticism is described in terms of
PT
a behavioral inhibition system, being associated with a sensitivity to punishment stimuli (Depue
CE
& Collins, 1999). Thus, rather than neuroticism leading to negative perceptions of any specific job characteristic, the results may support a more internally-focused emotional generalization
AC
view, where neurotic employees, who tend to view themselves negatively, appraise their work environments more negatively as well (Gray, 1994; Judge et al., 1997; Levin & Stokes, 1989). For conscientiousness, as expected, we observed a significant mediated relationship through perceived task characteristics. Similarly, agreeableness and openness were expressed into perceived job characteristics as hypothesized—primarily via social and task characteristics, respectively. However, we also found a negative direct openness-OJA effect, meaning that after
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 30 accounting for job characteristics, open employees report being less satisfied/committed at work. Theoretical Implications There is near-indisputable consensus that dispositions influence job attitudes (Judge &
T
Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012). However, it is less clear how FFM traits shape such evaluations,
IP
especially for those traits less affective in nature (e.g., conscientiousness, openness, and
CR
agreeableness). Our work suggests that employees may perceive jobs differently with regard to
US
specific characteristics, offering evidence of important explanatory mechanisms for these effects.
AN
Although researchers agree that individual perceptions of task/social job characteristics
M
are critical in determining one’s affective and behavioral reactions at work (e.g., Barrick et al.,
ED
2013), previous studies have predominantly adopted an interactionist perspective, which theorizes how traits activate or inhibit the influence of job characteristics on work outcomes.
PT
Our study complements this scholarship, focusing on the subjective nature of job characteristics
CE
perceptions and subsequent work attitudes resulting from such intrinsic sources. Indeed, theoretical work by Barrick et al. (2013) suggests that subjective evaluations of work conditions
AC
often have a much stronger effect on affective and behavioral reactions than do objective levels of such conditions, implying that a meaningful proportion of the variance in such perceptions is due to individual differences such as FFM traits. In meta-analytically examining perceived task and social characteristics as mediators, we can subsequently better understand how personality traits are expressed in employee evaluations of meaningful work. Our findings also shed light on the differences among traits in shaping job characteristics
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 31 perceptions, and, in turn, work attitudes. As hypothesized, certain traits (e.g., conscientiousness and openness) influence attitudes through task characteristics perceptions, whereas others (e.g., agreeableness) exhibit effects through social characteristics perceptions. It is also noteworthy that although neuroticism showed the second-strongest zero order trait
IP
T
relationship with social characteristics, this link failed to reach statistical significance in the path
CR
model. Moreover, there were no significant indirect effects linking extraversion or neuroticism to attitudes. Although “emotionally stable individuals are calm, relaxed, less depressed, less
US
stress prone, and more confident” (Barrick et al., 2013, p. 141), the evidence presented suggests that such descriptors do not perhaps elicit focused activity toward positive
AN
interpersonal relationships or task enrichment, per se, but rather manifest in predominately
M
affective terms (and similarly for extraversion).
ED
Another implication of this study that we answer research calls to better understand “the etiology of job attitudes…” (Harrison et al., 2006, p. 320). A key takeaway of this study is in
PT
bringing clarity to the literature by helping bridge the chasm that is the total “personality
CE
system” (McCrae & Costa, 2008). In other words, by modeling specific task and social characteristics mechanisms that specify how personality traits are expressed at work, our
AC
results help connect what are considered more distal aspects of human nature (i.e., traits) with the proximal thoughts and feelings, and actions manifested in one’s environment (Cantor, 1990). Practical Implications Our findings offer insights for managers and human resource specialists. To the extent that managers are interested in both improving employee attitudes and facilitating work
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 32 environments that feel supportive and offer people recognition/meaning, rather than exclusively focusing on output—and there is evidence this is often the case (Saari & Judge, 2004; Young et al., 2018)— strategically using the FFM traits for selection, guided by our findings, would likely generate satisfactory returns. Whereas extant scholarship provides
IP
T
relatively generic instructions regarding what traits should be included in selection tools, our
CR
research offers greater detail regarding explanatory mechanisms to help managers make better sense of these relationships.
US
At a general level, our results suggest that managers and human resource specialists may find value in knowing that subjective task/social job characteristics perceptions and
AN
subsequent job attitudes derive, in part, from dispositions (also supported by our relative
M
weights analyses). Although managers often go to significant lengths to design and/or
ED
manipulate features of the task or social work context in an effort to improve the occupant’s perceptions of said context, as well as job attitudes, is also important to recognize that such
PT
evaluations do not solely derive from top-down managerial intervention. Rather, we have
CE
shown that, in a bottom-up sense, dispositional factors also contribute to job characteristic perceptions and resulting attitudes. Put differently, implementing personality assessment into
AC
selection efforts may, over time, be quite cost-effective as a means of improving employee’s perceptions of their work environments and job attitudes, rather than assuming attitude intervention efforts are the most effective approach, and which could yield disappointing returns (e.g., Knight, Patterson & Dawson, 2017). At a more specific level, our findings imply that employees are also apt to view their jobs as having more enriching levels of task and/or social characteristics due to particular
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 33 personality trait levels. Our findings can therefore inform practitioners as to the unique differences among FFM traits and the distinct mechanisms by which they affect job attitudes: Some trait are associated with greater perceptions of task characteristics, some with social characteristics, and others with neither. If a hiring manager selects for high conscientiousness,
IP
T
as is often advised (Barrick & Mount, 2000), our findings suggest that this will result in
CR
procuring a particular type of employee—someone who recognizes more of the task-enriching aspects of his/her work. In contrast, if a manager desires a workforce where employees
US
acknowledge corporate efforts to create a communal environment—and such goals are often seen in family firms (Arregle, Hitt, Sirmon, & Very, 2007; Kotlar & Demassis, 2013)—selecting on
AN
agreeableness would be a useful focus. At the same time, with the residual direct effects of
M
neuroticism and extraversion in mind, managers continually plagued by employee negativity
ED
regarding work conditions might not put excess blame on themselves, as a significant share of these evaluations can be attributed to internal, dispositional factors. That is, highly neurotic
PT
employees may view even the most attractive work environments negatively, whereas
CE
extraverts might still find silver linings in jobs offering less task/social enrichment. Granted, this does not absolve managers of the responsibility to make employees’ time at work as conducive
AC
to high performance as possible. Equally, appreciating individual self-selection forces (i.e., the gravitational hypothesis), recruiters might also consider tailoring or projecting the attractiveness of particular vacancy characteristics to the personality makeup of prospective applicants, as a means of reinforcing subjective fit between individual task/social characteristic wants and those supplied by a job (Cable & Yu, 2006). For a sales position, a recruiter might emphasize to more conscientious and
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 34 open individuals the opportunities available to work autonomously on accounts with high identity and greater sales feedback as a means of facilitating their task characteristics interests, whereas for agreeable individuals, the focus might be geared more towards opportunities to interact with others and develop long-lasting client relationships (Stevens & Macintosh, 2003).
T
Limitations and Future Research Directions
IP
Although our model was guided by theory, causality assertions cannot be guaranteed,
CR
even if one separates temporal measurement of independent and dependent variables. Though
US
it is easier to position FFM traits leading to work design characteristics than the other way around (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998), there exists the possibility of reverse directionality in
AN
other areas, for instance, more positive attitudes leading employees to perceive greater social
M
characteristics.
ED
Second, in presenting a “big picture” focus of personality traits, perceived job characteristics, and job attitudes, we may have omitted meaningful nuances in the model. For
PT
instance, we encourage work that examines personality facets (e.g., extraversion as sociability
CE
versus dominance, conscientiousness as responsibility versus achievement orientation, openness as intellect versus aesthetics; Harari et al., 2018; Judge, Rodell, Klinger, Simon, &
AC
Crawford, 2013) as it relates job characteristics/attitude perceptions. We also encourage studies to examine other attitudes beyond those examined here. For example, although affective commitment has strong overlaps with job satisfaction, continuance and normative commitment do not (Harrison et al., 2006), and so the theoretical mechanisms linking FFM traits to these evaluations may differ. Further, although we focused on perceived job characteristics in this study as a means of examining trait expression and job attitudes, future
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 35 research would be well-served in measuring objective job characteristics, such as those obtained through content analyses of job postings or staffing handbooks, as a means of comparing perceptual-related reasons of self-verification to proactive gravitation towards jobs offering greater levels of such characteristics.
IP
T
Third, as noted in the introduction and earlier discussion, we also acknowledge
CR
moderation perspectives, which examine how work attitudes and behavior are influenced by interactions between traits and one’s environment (Christiansen et al., 2014; Frieder, Wang, &
US
Oh, in press; Harari et al., 2018; Judge & Zapata, 2015). Although meta-analytic path analysis limits us from being able to test such interactions, it would be worthwhile to comprehensively
AN
test whether employees expressing a given FFM trait are more satisfied/committed when jobs
M
offer work design characteristics congruent with that trait. For example, those high in openness
ED
may have more favorable attitudes in work offering greater task characteristic levels. Fourth, although the perceived job characteristics depicted herein are one way to
PT
describe trait expression, future work may integrate other mediating explanations. It would be
CE
valuable to link traits to attitudes with theories highlighting process-based mechanisms rather than the content of work design (Kanfer, Frese, & Johnson, 2017). For example, traits might also
AC
be expressed via goal choice/setting (Barrick et al., 2013), expectancy formation (Judge & Ilies, 2002), state affective experiences (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), or self-regulation processes (Kanfer, 2012). We encourage research that examines the intervening role of these additional processes in trait expression at work.
References
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 36 Aguinis, H., Joo, H., & Gottfredson, R. K. (2013). What monetary rewards can and cannot do: How to show employees the money. Business Horizons, 56, 241-249. Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18. Arregle, J. L., Hitt, M. A., Sirmon, D. G., & Very, P. (2007). The development of organizational
IP
T
social capital: Attributes of family firms. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 73-95. Arvey, R. D., Bouchard, T. J., Segal, N. L., & Abraham, L. M. (1989). Job satisfaction:
CR
Environmental and genetic components. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 187-192. Asendorpf, J. B., & Wilpers, S. (1998). Personality effects on social relationships. Journal of
US
Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1531-1544.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2000). Select on conscientiousness and emotional
AN
stability. Handbook of principles of organizational behavior, 15, 19-40. Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Li, N. (2013). The Theory of Purposeful Work Behavior: The role
M
of personality, higher-order goals, and job characteristics. Academy of Management Review, 38, 132-153.
ED
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and job performance: Test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied
PT
Psychology, 87, 43-51.
CE
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
AC
Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 17, 303-316. Borgatta, E. F. (1964). The structure of personality characteristics. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 9, 8-17. Brief, A. P. (1998). Attitudes in and around organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Brown, G., Pierce, J. L., & Crossley, C. (2014). Toward an understanding of the development of ownership feelings. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 318-338.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 37 Bruk-Lee, V., Khoury, H. A., Nixon, A. E., Goh, A., & Spector, P. E. (2009). Replicating and extending past personality/job satisfaction meta-analyses. Human Performance, 22, 156-189. Cable, D. M., & Yu, K. Y. T (2006). Managing job seekers’ organizational image beliefs: The role of media richness and media credibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 828-840.
T
Cantor, N. (1990). From thought to behavior:" Having" and" doing" in the study of personality
IP
and cognition. American Psychologist, 45, 735-750.
CR
Chang, C. H., Rosen, C. C., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The relationship between perceptions of organizational politics and employee attitudes, strain, and behavior: A meta-analytic examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 779-801.
US
Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and
AN
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1082-1103. Choi, D., Oh, I. S., & Colbert, A. E. (2015). Understanding organizational commitment: A meta-
M
analytic examination of the roles of the Five-Factor Model of personality and culture.
ED
Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1542-1567. Christiansen, N., Sliter, M., & Frost, C. T. (2014). What employees dislike about their
PT
jobs: Relationship between personality-based fit and work satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 71, 25-29.
CE
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1999). Temperament: A new paradigm for trait psychology. Handbook of personality: Theory and Research, 2, 399-423.
AC
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological assessment, 4, 5-13. Depue, R. A., & Collins, P. F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of personality: Dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation, and extraversion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 491-517. DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Sources of openness/intellect: Cognitive and neuropsychological correlates of the fifth factor of personality. Journal of Personality, 73, 825-858.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 38 DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880-896. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the Five-Factor Model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440. Dragoni, L., Oh, I. S., Vankatwyk, P., & Tesluk, P. E. (2011). Developing executive leaders: The
T
relative contribution of cognitive ability, personality, and the accumulation of work
IP
experience in predicting strategic thinking competency. Personnel Psychology, 64, 829-
CR
864.
Erdheim, J., Wang, M., & Zickar, M. J. (2006). Linking the Big Five personality constructs to organizational commitment. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 959-970.
US
Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and metaanalysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287-322.
AN
Frieder, R. E., Wang, G., & Oh, I. S. (2018). Linking job-relevant personality traits, transformational leadership, and job performance via perceived meaningfulness at
M
work: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103, 324-333.
ED
Gerhart, B. (1987). How important are dispositional factors as determinants of job satisfaction? Implications for job design and other personnel programs. Journal of Applied
PT
Psychology, 72, 366-373.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure.
CE
Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42. Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the
28.
AC
lower-level facets of several five-factor models. Personality Psychology in Europe, 7, 7-
Gray, J. A. (1994). Personality dimensions and emotion systems. In P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 329-331). New York: Oxford University Press. Graziano, W. G., Habashi, M. M., Sheese, B. E., & Tobin, R. M. (2007). Agreeableness, empathy, and helping: A person × situation perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 583-599.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 39 Griffin, R. W., Bateman, T. S., Wayne, S. J., & Head, T. C. (1987). Objective and social factors as determinants of task perceptions and responses: An integrated perspective and empirical investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 501-523. Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 259-286.
T
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of
IP
Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170.
CR
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Harari, M. B., Thompson, A. H., & Viswesvaran, C. (2018). Extraversion and job satisfaction: The role of trait bandwidth and the moderating effect of status
US
goal attainment. Personality and Individual Differences, 123, 14-16. Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are job attitudes? Meta-
AN
analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 305-325.
M
Heath, C. (1999). On the social psychology of agency relationships: Lay theories of motivation
Processes, 78, 25-62.
ED
overemphasize extrinsic incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
PT
Heider. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. NY: Wiley. Heller, D., Judge, T. A., & Watson, D. (2002). The confounding role of personality and trait
CE
affectivity in the relationship between job and life satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 815-835.
AC
Higgins, E. T., & Scholer, A. A. (2008). When is personality revealed?: A motivated cognition approach. In O. John, R. Robins, & L. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 182–207). New York: Guildford Press. Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 100-112. Hogan, J., Rybicki, S. L., & Borman, W. C. (1998). Relations between contextual performance, personality, and occupational advancement. Human Performance, 11, 189-207.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 40 Hogan, R. & Blickle, G. (2013). Socioanalytic theory. In N. D. Christiansen & R. P. Tett (Eds.), Handbook of personality at work (pp. 53-70). New York: Routledge. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and
T
contextual work design features: a meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of
IP
the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1332-1356.
research findings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
CR
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in
John, O. P. (1990). The “Big Five” factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural
US
language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 66-100). New York, NY: Guildford Press.
AN
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of Personality:
M
Theory and Research (pp. 102-138). New York, NY: Guildford Press.
ED
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy. In O. John, R. Robins, & L.A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory
PT
and Research (pp. 114-158). New York, NY: Guildford Press. Johnson, W., Turkheimer, E., Gottesman, I. I., & Bouchard Jr, T. J. (2009). Beyond heritability:
220.
CE
Twin studies in behavioral research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 217-
AC
Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and organization attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50, 359-394. Judge, T. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1993). Job satisfaction as a reflection of disposition: A multiple source causal analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56, 388421. Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A metaanalytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797-807.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 41 Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2012). Job attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 341-367. Judge, T. A., & Zapata, C. P. (2015). 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. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 1149-1179.
T
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating
IP
role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 237-249.
CR
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530-541. Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The Big Five personality
US
traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621-652.
AN
Judge, T. A., Jackson, C. L., Shaw, J. C., Scott, B. A., & Rich, B. L. (2007). Self-efficacy and work-
Psychology, 92, 107-127.
M
related performance: The integral role of individual differences. Journal of Applied
ED
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151-188.
PT
Judge, T. A., Rodell, J. B., Klinger, R. L., Simon, L. S., & Crawford, E. R. (2013). Hierarchical representations of the five-factor model of personality in predicting job performance:
CE
integrating three organizing frameworks with two theoretical perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 875-925.
AC
Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Judge, T. A., & Scott, B. A. (2009). The role of core self-evaluations in the coping process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 177-195. Kandler, C., Riemann, R., & Kämpfe, N. (2009). Genetic and environmental mediation between measures of personality and family environment in twins reared together. Behavior Genetics, 39, 24-35. Kanfer, R. 2012. Work motivation: Theory, practice, and future directions. In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 455-495). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 42 Kanfer, R., Frese, M., & Johnson, R. E. (2017). Motivation related to work: A century of progress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 338-355. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guildford Press. Knight, C., Patterson, M., & Dawson, J. (2017). Building work engagement: A systematic review
T
and meta-analysis investigating the effectiveness of work engagement interventions.
IP
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38, 792-812.
CR
Kotlar, J., & De Massis, A. (2013). Goal setting in family firms: Goal diversity, social interactions, and collective commitment to family‐centered goals. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37, 1263-1288.
US
Larsen, R. J., & Ketelaar, T. (1991). Personality and susceptibility to positive and negative emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 132-140.
AN
Le, H., Schmidt, F. L., Harter, J. K., & Lauver, K. J. (2010). The problem of empirical redundancy of constructs in organizational research: An empirical investigation. Organizational
M
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112, 112-125.
ED
Levin, I., & Stokes, J. P. (1989). Dispositional approach to job satisfaction: Role of negative affectivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 752-758.
PT
Loher, B. T., Noe, R. A., Moeller, N. L., & Fitzgerald, M. P. (1985). A meta-analysis of the relation of job characteristics to job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 280-289.
CE
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable
AC
effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesistesting approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320-341. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2008). A five-factor theory of personality. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (Vol. 3, pp. 161-181. New York: Guilford Press.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 43 Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321-1339. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.
T
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus Use ’s Guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
IP
Nolan, S. A., Roberts, J. E., & Gotlib, I. H. (1998). Neuroticism and ruminative response style as
CR
predictors of change in depressive symptomatology. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 22, 445–455.
Ones, D., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality testing for
US
personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660-679. Organ, D. W., & Lingl, A. (1995). Personality, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship
AN
behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 339-350.
Ostroff, C., & Harrison, D. A. (1999). Meta-analysis, level of analysis, and best estimates of
M
population correlations: Cautions for interpreting meta-analytic results in organizational
ED
behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 260-270. Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The
PT
mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management journal, 49, 327340.
CE
Saari, L. M., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 43, 395-407.
AC
Sadowski, C. J., & Cogburn, H. E. (1997). Need for cognition in the Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Psychology, 131, 307-312. Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2008, June). Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects [Computer software]. Smircich, L., & Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership: The management of meaning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18, 257-273.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 44 Smith, P. C., Kendall, L., & Hulin, C. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and behavior. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Song, Z., Li, W., & Arvey, R. D. (2011). Associations between dopamine and serotonin genes and job satisfaction: Preliminary evidence from the Add Health Study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1223-1233.
T
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences. New
IP
York: Sage.
CR
Srivastava, A., Locke, E. A., Judge, T. A., & Adams, J. W. (2010). Core self-evaluations as causes of satisfaction: The mediating role of seeking task complexity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 255-265.
US
Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. (1985). Stability in the midst of change: A dispositional approach to job attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 469-480.
AN
Staw, B. M., Bell, N. E., & Clausen, J. A. (1986). The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 56-77.
M
Stevens, C. D., & Macintosh, G. (2003). Personality and attractiveness of activities within sales
ED
jobs. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 23, 23-37. Swann, W. B. (1983). Self-verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with the self. Social
PT
Psychological Perspectives on the Self, 2, 33-66. Swann, W. B., Wenzlaff, R. M., Krull, D. S., & Pelham, B. W. (1992). Allure of negative feedback:
CE
Self-verification strivings among depressed persons. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 293-306.
AC
Templer, K. J. (2012). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: The importance of agreeableness in a tight and collectivistic Asian society. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 61, 114-129. Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500-517. Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., Warren, C. R., & De Chermont, K. (2003). The affective underpinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic review and integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 914-945.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 45 Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (No. ASD-TR-61-97). Lackland Air Force Base, TX: US Air Force. Van Den Berg, P. T., & Feij, J. A. (2003). Complex Relationships among personality traits, job characteristics, and work behaviors. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 326-339.
T
Van der Linden, D., te Nijenhuis, J., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). The general factor of personality: A
IP
meta-analysis of Big Five intercorrelations and a criterion-related validity study. Journal
CR
of Research in Personality, 44, 315-327.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta‐analysis and structural equations modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48, 865-885.
US
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 767-793). San
AN
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the
M
structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw, & L.
ED
L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. (Vol. 18, pp. 1–74). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
PT
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14, 490-495.
CE
Wiesenfeld, B. M., Swann Jr, W. B., Brockner, J., & Bartel, C. A. (2007). Is more fairness always preferred? Self-esteem moderates reactions to procedural justice. Academy of
AC
Management Journal, 50, 1235-1253. Wilk, S. L., Desmarais, L. B., & Sackett, P. R. (1995). Gravitation to jobs commensurate with ability: Longitudinal and cross-sectional tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 79-85. Young, H. R., Glerum, D. R., Wang, W., & Joseph, D. L (2018). Who are the most engaged at work? A meta-analysis of personality and employee engagement. Journal of Organizational Behavior. doi.org/10.1002/job.2302
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 46 Zhong, J. A., Cao, Z. L., Huo, Y., Chen, Z., & Lam, W. (2012). The mediating role of job feedback in the relationship between neuroticism and emotional labor. Social Behavior and Personality, 40, 649-655.
T
Figure 1 Path Model Results
IP
Extraversion
Neuroticism
R2 = .09
T: -.04 S: -.07 OJA: -.12*
Conscientiousness
AN
Social Characteristics
Job Satisfaction
Affective Commitment
λ = .80 R2 = .64
λ = .75 R2 = .56
ED
T: -.03 S: .23** OJA: .04
.41**
M
Agreeableness
Openness
Overall Job Attitude
R2 = .11
T: .17** S: .02 OJA: .08
R2 = .65
.45**
US
Task Characteristics
CR
T: .10 S: .12 OJA: .13*
PT
T: .13* S: -.05 OJA: -.15**
CE
Notes. T = Task characteristics, S = Social characteristics, OJA = Overall job attitude. Median sample size N = 316. * p < .05 ** p < .01. Table 1 Relationships between FFM Traits and Job Characteristics Mediators
AC
Relationships Extraversion Task Characteristics Social Characteristics Affective Commitment Neuroticism Task Characteristics Social Characteristics Affective Commitment Conscientiousness Task Characteristics Social Characteristics Affective Commitment
k
N
SD
80 % CV Lower Upper
95% CI Lower Upper
48 39 50
23,060 15,369 11,447
.16 .16 .20
.21 .19 .24
.09 .09 .11
.09 .08 .11
.32 .30 .38
.18 .16 .21
.23 .23 .28
68 56 58
44,560 25,078 23,488
–.13 –.17 –.19
–.16 –.20 –.23
.13 .12 .12
–.32 –.36 –.42
.01 –.05 –.05
–.19 –.24 –.27
–.12 –.17 –.19
49 41 67
20,254 19,333 16,339
.18 .15 .20
.23 .18 .25
.12 .14 .17
.08 .01 .03
.38 .36 .48
.19 .14 .21
.27 .23 .30
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 47 Agreeableness Task Characteristics Social Characteristics Affective Commitment Openness Task Characteristics Social Characteristics Affective Commitment
30 36 52
15,553 16,877 13,163
.08 .24 .23
.11 .29 .29
.14 .12 .13
–.08 .14 .10
.29 .44 .48
.05 .25 .25
.16 .33 .34
32 32 46
17,800 14,076 11,411
.15 .05 .09
.21 .07 .11
.14 .12 .17
.02 –.09 –.10
.38 .22 .33
.15 .02 .06
.25 .11 .17
CR
IP
T
Notes. k = number of correlations; N = combined sample size; = sample-size-weighted mean correlation; = estimated population correlation; = standard deviation of estimated population correlation; CV = credibility interval; CI = confidence interval.
N 266,929
367 105
248,560 112,868
247 101
170,648 95,519
M
80 % CV
95% CI
.34
SD .16
Lower .14
Upper .54
Lower .32
Upper .36
.40 .36
.51 .46
.17 .15
.30 .26
.73 .66
.49 .43
.53 .49
.38 .39
.48 .50
.13 .14
.32 .31
.64 .68
.47 .47
.50 .53
.27
AN
k 270
ED
Relationships Task-Social Characteristics Task Characteristics Job Satisfaction Affective Commitment Social Characteristics Job Satisfaction Affective Commitment
US
Table 2 Relationships between Job Characteristics Mediators and Job Attitudes
AC
CE
PT
Notes. k = number of correlations; N = combined sample size; = sample-size-weighted mean correlation; = estimated population correlation; = standard deviation of estimated population correlation; CV = credibility interval; CI = confidence interval.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Running Head: PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 48 Table 3 Meta-Analytic Correlations among All Study Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Extraversion .80 ( ) k (N) 2. Neuroticism .82 a ( ) −.26 (−.36) k (N) 212 (144,117) 3. Conscientiousness .81 a a ( ) .21 (.29) –.32 (–.43) k (N) 212 (144,117) 212 (144,117) 4. Agreeableness .76 a a a ( ) .18 (.26) –.26 (–.36) .31 (.43) k (N) 212 (144,117) 212 (144,117) 212 (144,117) 5. Openness to Experience .75 a a a a ( ) .31 (.43) –.12 (–.17) .14 (.20) .14 (.21) k (N) 212 (144,117) 212 (144,117) 212 (144,117) 212 (144,117) 6. Task Characteristics .81 ( ) .16 (.21) –.13 (–.16) .18 (.23) .08 (.11) .15 (.21) k (N) 48 (23,060) 68 (44,560) 49 (20,254) 30 (15,553) 32 (17,800) 7. Social .76 Characteristics ( ) .16 (.19) -.17 (-.20) .15 (.18) .24 (.29) .05 (.07) .27 (.34) k (N) 39 (15,369) 56 (25,078) 41 (19,333) 36 (16,877) 32 (14,076) 270 (266,929) 8. Job Satisfaction .85 b b b b b ( ) .19 (.25) –.24 (–.29) .20 (.26) .13 (.17) .01 (.02) .40 (.51) .38 (.48) k (N) 75 (20,184) 92 (24,527) 79 (21,719) 38 (11,856) 50 (15,196) 367 (248,560) 247 (170,648) 9. Affective Commitment .83 c ( ) .20 (.24) –.19 (–.23) .20 (.25) .23 (.29) .09 (.11) .36 (.46) .39 (.50) .54 (.60) k (N) 50 (11,447) 58 (23,488) 67 (16,339) 52 (13,163) 46 (11,411) 105 (112,868) 101 (95,519) 112 (39,187) Notes. Italicized numbers on the main diagonal are reliability coefficients. = Sample-size-weighted corrected mean correlation; = Correlation corrected for reliability a attenuation in the predictor and criterion; k = Number of effects meta-analyzed; N = Total sample size in the meta-analysis. Median study sample size = 316. van der Linden, te b c Nijenhuis, & Bakker (2010). Judge, Heller, & Mount (2002). Harrison, Newman, & Roth (2006). 1.
T P
I R
C S
A
U N
D E
T P
C A
E C
M
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Running Head: PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 49 Table 4 Mediation Effect Decomposition Monte Carlo Indirect Effect Lower/Upper 95% Confidence Interval Bounds to OJA via
FFM Trait
Direct Effect
Extraversion
Conscientiousnes
D E
s
T P
Agreeableness
E C
Openness
C A
UB
LB
UB
U N
.10
-.004
.10
A
-.12*
M
.08
C S
Social Characteristics
LB .13*
Neuroticism
T P
I R
Task Characteristics
-.01
ns
-.07
.04
ns -.08
ns
.02
ns .14
-.04
p < .05 .04 -.15**
-.07
.04 ns
.01
.02
.06 ns
.05
.15
p < .05 .12
p < .05
-.07
.03 ns
Notes. Median study sample size N = 316. LB = Lower bound, UB = Upper bound. OJA = Overall job attitude.* p < .05, ** p < .01. 95% confidence intervals that do not cross zero are significant at p < .05.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 50
Table 5 Meta-Analytic Relationships among FFM Traits, Specific Task/Social Job Characteristics and Job Attitudes E (SD ) k/N
N (SD ) k/N
C (SD ) k/N
A (SD ) k/N
O (SD ) k/N
JSAT (SD ) k/N
.18 (.05) 10 / 2,770 .20 (.10)
-.11 (.00) 9 / 3,381 -.15 (.10)
.16 (.08) 8 / 2,583 .16 (.00)
.24 (.07) 6 / 2,196 .21 (.10)
-.01 (.18) 6 / 1,837 .07 (.00)
2 / 1,044 .20 (.09) 26 / 10,694
2 / 1,044 -.19 (.10) 37 / 16,314
2 / 1,044 .16 (.15) 25 / 11,799
2 / 945 .28 (.13) 25 / 10,484
.15 (.06) 4 / 2,794 .19 (.16) 2 / 945
-.26 (.14) 12 / 6,644 -.21 (.09) 2 / 945
.23 (.12) 9 / 5,840 .20 (.00) 2 / 945
.29 (.08) 8 / 5,184 .28 (.20) 2 / 945
.18 (.09) 33 / 22,357
-.13 (.11) 42 / 39,360
Variety
.14 (.04) 8 / 1,786
-.12 (.04) 8 / 1,939
T P
Significance
.20 (.15) 9 / 2,959 .17 (.00) 4 / 1,148 .16 (.06) 8 / 1,826
Social Characteristics Interdependence Feedback from Others Social Support Conflict (Rev.-code) Int. Outside Task Characteristics Autonomy
Identity Feedback from Job
D E
ACOM (SD ) k/N
SOC (SD ) k/N
TASK (SD ) k/N
.34 (.17) 43 / 19,727 .39 (.08)
.47 (.17) 14 / 4,075 .48 (.23)
-
.29 (.14) 41 / 22,389 .33 (.07)
2 / 1,044 .10 (.05) 23 / 10,334
20 / 12,341 .49 (.14) 189 / 148,697
4 / 4,377 .51 (.14) 80 / 87,160
-
18 / 12,743 .35 (.13) 212 / 229,051
.06 (.08) 4 / 2,794 .04 (.00) 2 / 945
.36 (.12) 43 / 15,139 .36 (.16) 10 / 2,774
.39 (.18) 14 / 4,188 .47 (.14) 2 / 531
-
.23 (.10) 20 / 4,847 .32 (.09) 8 / 16,262
M
I R
C S
U N
A
T P
.19 (.11) 34 / 16,697
.11 (.13) 20 / 12,823
.19 (.09) 21 / 14,794
.47 (.15) 266 / 176,199
.41 (.15) 65 / 59,485
.34 (.18) 220 / 214,626
-
.29 (.20) 10 / 2,153
.08 (.01) 5 / 1,472
.23 (.26) 6 / 1,873
.42 (.17) 132 / 67,329
.34 (.10) 29 / 15,991
.39 (.19) 41 / 33,141
-
-.14 (.10) 10 / 2,758 -.14 (.08) 3 / 1,164
.23 (.07) 11 / 2,837 .17 (.00) 6 / 1,386
.13 (.08) 6 / 1,890 .12 (.00) 3 / 1,073
.17 (.09) 6 / 1,908 .20 (.07) 3 / 1,825
.43 (.13) 103 / 60,075 .36 (.12) 112 / 59,160
.45 (.17) 15 / 14,009 .34 (.14) 16 / 9,982
.40 (.17) 38 / 33,010 .42 (.20) 37 / 31,479
-
-.16 (.10) 10 / 2,548
.21 (.14) 13 / 2,375
.09 (.23) 6 / 1,906
.18 (.00) 6 / 1,811
.42 (.15) 123 / 71,996
.42 (.11) 23 / 27,963
.43 (.17) 54 / 59,878
-
E C
C A
Notes. k = Number of correlations; N = Combined sample size = Es mated popula on correla on SD = Standard deviation of estimated population correlation; Rev.-code = Construct is reverse-coded such that a positive correlation represents lower levels of conflict (i.e., more favorable social characteristics). Int. Outside = Interaction outside the organization. E = Extraversion. N =
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 51 Neuroticism. C = Conscientiousness. A = Agreeableness. O = Openness. JSAT = Job satisfaction. ACOM = Affective commitment. SOC = Social characteristics. TASK = Task characteristics.
T P
I R
C S
A
U N
D E
T P
C A
E C
M
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 52
.19 -.20 .18 .29 .07
Job Satisfaction
Task Characteristics Social Characteristics Extraversion Neuroticism Conscientiousness Agreeableness Openness
.51
.019 .017 .011 .057 .001
17.77 15.88 10.71 54.28 1.36
.38*
.178
42.18
.48
.31*
.142
33.65
.25 -.29 .26 .17 .02
.12* -.13* .07 -.04 -.16*
.027 .036 .023 .006 .009
6.42 8.46 5.45 1.55 2.29
.46
.31*
.134
35.51
.50
.33*
.156
41.40
.24 -.23 .25 .29 .11
.08 -.03 .04 .12* -.05
.019 .014 .017 .034 .002
5.06 3.76 4.62 8.98 0.67
AC
CE
(R2 = .376)
Task Characteristics Social Characteristics Extraversion Neuroticism Conscientiousness Agreeableness Openness
PT
Affective Commitment
ED
M
AN
(R2 = .421)
.12 .07 .02 .23* -.05
CR
Extraversion Neuroticism Conscientiousness Agreeableness Openness
US
Social Characteristics (R2 = .105)
IP
T
Table 6 Corrected Meta-Analytic Correlations, Path Coefficients, Relative Weights, and Rescaled Relative Weights (i.e., %R2) across FFM Traits and Outcomes DV Predictors rc B Relative %R2 Weights Task Characteristics Extraversion .21 .10 .020 22.50 2 (R = .091) Neuroticism -.16 -.04 .009 10.34 Conscientiousness .23 .17* .032 35.25 Agreeableness .11 -.03 .003 3.19 * Openness .21 .026 28.72 .13
Notes. *p < .05. DV = Dependent variable. R2 = Total variance explained in the DV. rc = Samplesize weighted corrected meta-correlation. B = Path coefficients. Relative weights = Relative importance of predictors (i.e., the contribution of each predictor to the overall model R2). Relative weights sum to the R2 for the model. %R2 = Rescaled relative weights (i.e., proportion of variance predicted in the DV by each predictor). %R2 sum to 100. We use three-decimal place in this table for relative weights because several numbers would be reported as zero if twodecimal places were used.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND JOB ATTITUDES META-ANALYSIS 53
Highlights
T
IP
CR US AN M ED PT
CE
All of the “Big Five” personality traits have meaningful relationships with overall job attitudes Each trait predicts job attitudes through distinct pathways underscoring perceived task and/or social job characteristics Traits affect attitudes both via job selection and employee self-selection into settings offering certain design features
AC