- Email: [email protected]
Workers behaving badly: Associations between adolescent reports of the Big Five and counterproductive work behaviors in adulthood
Personality and Individual Differences 61–62 (2014) 7–12
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Workers behaving badly: Associations between adolescent reports of the Big Five and counterproductive work behaviors in adulthood Kimdy Le a,⇑, M. Brent Donnellan b, Sarah K. Spilman c, Olivia Pavlov Garcia d, Rand Conger c a
Indiana University Purdue University Columbus, USA Michigan State University, USA c University of California, Davis, USA d Indiana University, Bloomington, USA b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 23 February 2013 Received in revised form 24 October 2013 Accepted 13 December 2013 Available online 18 January 2014 Keywords: Personality Counterproductive workplace behaviors Deviance Longitudinal Big five traits
a b s t r a c t There is increasing interest in identifying the personality traits correlated with the propensity to engage in counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs). The current study contributes to this literature by conceptually replicating and extending previous research documenting associations between personality traits and CWBs. Adolescent reports of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness were correlated with self-reports of CWBs 18 years later. The effects held even after controlling for indicators of adolescent academic performance and for current reports of job satisfaction. These results suggest that personality traits assessed in adolescence are prospectively associated with the propensity to engage in CWBs in adulthood. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
1. Introduction Counterproductive workplace behaviors (CWBs) include actions that harm organizations such as absenteeism, substance abuse on the job, and theft (i.e. organizational CWBs), as well as harassment and aggressive acts directed toward co-workers (i.e., interpersonal CWBs; Robinson & Bennett, 1995). These antisocial behaviors in the workplace pose enormous costs to organizations in terms of morale, lost resources, and diminished productivity with economic estimates ranging between $6 and $200 billion annually (Appelbaum, Iaconi, & Matousek, 2007; Buss, 1993; Camara & Schneider, 1994; Murphy, 1993). In light of these negative consequences, there is interest in identifying factors associated with the propensity to engage in CWBs. The existing literature often focuses on work-related variables surrounding CWBs such as job satisfaction and work commitment (Colbert, Mount, Harter, Witt, & Barrick, 2004; Penney & Spector, 2005). Other research also evaluates how specific personality traits are correlated with CWBs (Judge, Scott, & Ilies, 2006; Penney & Spector, 2002) although the time interval of these studies is often relatively short intervals (Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001; Judge et al., 2006). To add to the growing personality trait literature, the current study evaluates whether the Big Five traits in adolescence are associated with reports of ⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Indiana University Purdue University Columbus, 4601 Central Avenue, Columbus, IN 47201, USA. Tel.: +1 8123487261. E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Le). 0191-8869/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.12.016
CWBs in adulthood. The approximately 18-year time interval between the assessment of traits and CWBs is a relatively unique feature of the current design. In addition, we determine whether personality traits are related to CWBs above and beyond current reports of job satisfaction, a frequent correlate of CWBs (Dalal, 2005; Fox et al., 2001; Hanisch & Hulin, 1990). Thus, the current study provides an important replication and extension of recent longitudinal research pointing to a correlation between personality traits and CWBs (Roberts, Harms, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2007). 1.1. Personality traits and CWBs A number of studies in organizational psychology have evaluated how personality traits are related to workplace experiences and CWBs (Barling, Dupré, & Kelloway, 2009; Cullen & Sackett, 2003; Hershcovis et al., 2007; Mount, Ilies, & Johnson, 2006; Salgado, 2002). One of the most commonly used frameworks for organizing personality traits is the Five Factor Model (FFM) or the Big Five taxonomy (see John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008). This model classifies personality traits under five broad domains: Extraversion (e.g., outgoing, sociable, assertive), Agreeableness (empathetic, friendly, modest), Conscientiousness (organized, self-controlled, reliable), Neuroticism (tense, easily distressed, susceptible to negative emotions), and Openness (curious, imaginative, open-minded). Mount et al. (2006) found that low Conscientiousness and high Neuroticism were associated with Organizational CWBs (behaviors like stealing and absenteeism)
8
K. Le et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 61–62 (2014) 7–12
whereas low Agreeableness was associated with Interpersonal CWBs (behaviors like gossiping, teasing, and aggression). The associations between CWBs and Agreeableness and Conscientiousness are consistent with the associations between personality traits and general antisocial behaviors like crime and delinquency (Miller & Lynam, 2001; Ozer & Benet-Martínez, 2006) as well as other work showing that trait anger (i.e., low Agreeableness) is related to CWBs (Hershcovis et al., 2007). In short, there are indications that individuals who engage in CWBs tend to have a hostile and antagonistic interpersonal orientation and lack self-control. The goal of the present study is to evaluate whether the Big Five traits in early adolescence are associated with future reports of CWBs in adulthood. This kind of design is useful because it helps demonstrate temporal precedence between personality traits and CWBs. For example, a recent study found that personality traits related to self-control, aggression, and a dispositional interest in close relationships at age 18 were prospectively associated with CWBs at age 26 (Roberts et al., 2007). These findings are broadly consistent with the FFM traits outlined above and bolster the case that personality traits are one correlate of complex, multiply determined outcomes like CWBs. To be sure, effect size estimates related to personality traits are likely to be modest (Ahadi & Diener, 1989). Indeed, it is important to acknowledge that personality factors are likely to explain only some of the variability in the propensity to engage in CWBs. According to Social Control theory (Hirschi, 1969), the social bonds individuals have to conventional institutions such as families and organizations prevent deviance. When these bonds are broken, the individual is no longer committed to conformity and instead may engage in antisocial actions. In applying this idea to the workplace, it is plausible that employees who are satisfied with their job may refrain from engaging in CWBs under the idea that satisfaction serves as a proxy for investment in the organization (Hershcovis et al., 2007; Roberts et al., 2007). It is also useful to consider the possibility that reports of job satisfaction may also reflect personality attributes and the consequences of person-environment transactions in the workplace (Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001; Cullen & Sackett, 2003; Roberts, Walton, Bogg, & Caspi, 2006). For example, individuals with certain attributes like high conscientiousness might be rewarded by organizations and thereby report higher levels of job satisfaction, whereas attributes like neuroticism may predispose individuals toward lower levels of job satisfaction (Heller, Watson, & Ilies, 2004; Steel, Schmidt, & Schultz, 2008). These possibilities are one reason why it is difficult to provide an unambiguous interpretation of the correlations between job satisfaction and CWBs (see e.g., Hershcovis et al., 2007). In light of this issue, we tested whether personality-CWB associations are detected in regression models that include variables like job satisfaction (Roberts et al., 2007). We also introduce controls for school performance to test whether personality traits have unique effects beyond indicators of academic achievement. 1.2. Current study The goal of the current study is to test whether self-ratings of personality during adolescence are associated with CWBs in adulthood. Based on previous studies (Mount et al., 2006; Roberts et al., 2007), we expected that low Conscientiousness would be related to CWBs, particularly Organizational CWBs. In addition, we expected low Agreeableness and high Neuroticism to be related to Interpersonal CWBs. In sum, the current study is both a conceptual replication and extension of Roberts et al. (2007). Indeed, three major differences are worth noting. First, we used a longer interval (18 years) to evaluate associations between personality and CWBs. Our sample was younger than the Roberts et al. (2007) sample when they reported personality (approximately age 16 instead of 18) and older when they reported on CWBs (approximately age
35 instead of 26). The extended interval of this study provides a rigorous test of the correlations between personality traits and workplace behaviors. Second, we assessed personality with the NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1989), a personality measure tied to the FFM, whereas Roberts et al. (2007) used a measure of personality tied to Tellegen’s three factor model of personality (e.g., Clark & Watson, 2008; Tellegen & Waller, 2008). Using different personality measures is important for demonstrating that personality findings are robust across different trait measures. Third, we used Bennett and Robinson’s (2000) well-validated scale of CWBs whereas Roberts et al. (2007) assessed CWBs through information derived from interviews. Whereas Roberts et al. (2007) assessed CWBs through information derived from interviews. Thus, the current study used a different approach to measuring the primary dependent variables. Nonetheless, convergence in results would increase confidence in the correlation between personality traits in CWBs. 2. Method 2.1. Participants The data used to test the associations between the Big Five domains and CWBs were obtained from participants in the Iowa Youth and Families Project (IYFP). The IYFP began as a study of 451 families based in rural Iowa. A complete description of this project is available in Conger and Elder (1994) and details relevant to the Big Five assessments are provided in Donnellan, Conger, McAdams, and Neppl (2009). The IYFP started in 1989, when the target child was in the seventh grade, and continues to the present day as targets have transitioned to adulthood. Given the demography of Iowa at the time, the participating families were European American. Of the 451 participants (45% male) in the IYFP data set, 386 (86%) provided Big Five scores in adolescence. Of those participants with Big Five information, 310 (80%) and 296 (77%) had reports of CWBs in 2007 and 2010, respectively. 1.2. Measures 2.2.1. Big Five domains In 1991 and 1992 (average age = 15.09 and 16.07, respectively), the target youth completed the 60 items of the NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1989) using a 5-point scale (1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree). The internal consistencies of these scales ranged from .72 (Openness) to .85 (Neuroticism). 2.2.2. Academic achievement Academic achievement was assessed with two variables. First, GPA was assessed in 1991 (9th grade; M = 2.91; SD = .71) and 1992 (10th grade; M = 2.94, SD = .72) on a 0 (F) to 4 (A) scale commonly used to compute grades. We averaged GPAs across these two waves to derive a composite GPA measure (M = 2.92, SD = .69). In addition, in 1991 and 1992, percentile rankings on the Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITED) standardized test were obtained from school records. 2.2.3. Counterproductive workplace behaviors (CWB) In 2007 and 2010 (average age = 31.72 and 35.04, respectively), CWBs were assessed using the scales developed by Bennett and Robinson (2000) on a 7-point scale, (1 = never, 4 = several times a year, to 7 = daily). We averaged across the two assessment periods and created 3 composites: Interpersonal CWBs (7 items, a = .85), Organizational CWBs (12 items, a = .84), and a Total score (19 items, a = .89). We used the average composites to generate a more reliable estimate of propensity to engage in CWBs but results were similar when conducted separately at each wave. Information about each item is presented in Table 1.
9
K. Le et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 61–62 (2014) 7–12 Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for the CWB Scales & Items. 2007
2010
Stability Coefficient
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Interpersonal CWB Made fun of someone at work Said something hurtful to someone at work Made an ethnic, religious, or racial remark at work Cursed someone at work Played a mean prank on someone at work Acted rudely toward someone at work Publicly embarrassed someone at work
1.66 2.94 1.50 1.29 1.79 1.24 1.73 1.10
.76 1.93 .99 .87 1.50 .77 1.18 .48
1.58 2.63 1.46 1.42 1.61 1.19 1.67 1.09
.77 1.87 .99 1.09 1.34 .64 1.21 .47
.63 .54 .40 .43 .38 .51 .39 .05
Organizational CWB Taken property from work without permission Spent too much time fantasizing or daydreaming instead of working Falsified a receipt to get reimbursed for more money than you spent on business expenses Taken an additional or longer break than is acceptable at your workplace Come in late to work without permission Littered your work environment Neglected to follow your boss’s instructions Intentionally worked slower than you could have worked Discussed confidential company information with an unauthorized person Used an illegal drug or consumed alcohol on the job Put little effort into your work Dragged out work in order to get overtime
1.62 1.27 2.59 1.03 2.35 2.16 1.33 1.59 1.89 1.24 1.08 1.76 1.14
.62 .79 1.84 .23 1.74 1.64 1.08 1.14 1.43 .72 .53 1.23 .62
1.48 1.17 2.46 1.02 2.09 1.79 1.17 1.40 1.65 1.19 1.09 1.61 1.14
.52 .57 1.77 .22 1.56 1.35 .71 .96 1.23 .62 .55 1.12 .62
.60 .50 .40 .01 .36 .46 .43 .47 .38 .19 .48 .46 .50
Participants responded to each item using the following scale: 1(never), 2(once a year), 3 (twice a year), 4(several times a year), 5(monthly), 6(weekly), and 7(daily). For 2007, the CWB-I scale included 399 participants and the CWB-O scale included 400 participants. In 2010, both scales included 388 participants.
Table 2 Correlations and Descriptive Statistics of Personality, GPA, Job Satisfaction, and CWBs. 1 Gender1+ Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness GPA Iowa Test % Rank Job Satisfaction CWB – I CWB – O CWB – Total Mean (SD)
2
–
3 .16
4 .19 .36
– –
5
.03 .34 .43 –
6 .25 .35 .45 .49
7 .22 .18 .12 .04 .06
–
8 .12 .20 .26 .27 .11 .21
–
9 .09 .13 .17 .14 .08 .28 .80
–
10 .02 .03 .06 .18 .11 .11 .03 .01
–
11
.32 .07 .20 .16 .03 .08 .11 .08 .14
–
.14 .04 .12 .16 .06 .03 .03 .02 .17 .57
– – –
3.70 (.50)
3.56 (.44)
3.53 (.53)
2.80 (.63)
3.28 (.49)
2.92 (.69)
–
4.09 (.66)
1.66 (.76)
1.62 (.62)
12 .24 .06 .18 .18 .05 .02 .07 .02 .18 .85 .92 – 1.63 (.59)
Bold values indicate p < .05; Associations P |.11| are statistically significant at p < .05. We tested for gender differences in the personality-CWB associations and found little compelling evidence that gender moderated these associations. These results can be provided upon request. + 0 = females and 1 = males. 1
2.2.4. Job satisfaction Job satisfaction was assessed in 2007 and 2010 using a single item, ‘‘How happy are you with this job?’’ Participants responded on a 5-point scale (1 = very happy to 5 = very unhappy). We recoded responses so that higher numbers indicated higher satisfaction levels. We averaged ratings of job satisfaction across 2007 and 2010 to create the job satisfaction score but results were similar when both scores were used in separate analyses. Descriptive statistics are reported in Table 2. 3. Results 3.1. Associations between Big Five measures and outcomes Table 2 reports correlations between the primary variables. Adolescent Agreeableness and Conscientiousness were associated with Interpersonal, Organizational, and Total CWBs. In addition, adolescent Conscientiousness was positively associated with later job satisfaction. Consistent with previous work, job satisfaction
was negatively related to CWBs. Thus, the initial inspection of correlations was generally consistent with prediction and the existing literature. 3.2. Mediation analyses To test whether the associations between personality and CWBs were independent of academic achievement and job satisfaction, we performed mediation analyses using the bootstrapping method (Hayes, 2012). We predicted CWB from personality, academic achievement (GPA and ITED scores), and job satisfaction. We used a model where GPA, ITED scores, and job satisfaction were parallel mediators for the association between personality and CWB (Hayes, 2012, Fig. 2B). Table 3 shows the effects of Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Neuroticism as well as the indirect effects of the mediators.1 As Table 3 reveals, none of the indirect effects 1 Although we performed the analyses with Extraversion and Openness, we excluded them from the table to save space. These results are available upon request.
10
K. Le et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 61–62 (2014) 7–12
Table 3 Mediation analysis predicting CWBs from personality, GPA, Iowa Test of Educational Development (ITED), and Job satisfaction Associations with
Total effect of personality
Direct effect of personality
Indirect effect of GPA
95% CI
Indirect effect of ITED
95% CI
Indirect effect of job satisfaction
95% CI
Total r2
CWB-Interpersonal
Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism
.33 (.09) .22 (.07) .03 (.06)
.29 (.09) .17 (.07) .00 (.06)
.03 (.05) .04 (.04) .02 (.02)
.13 to .05 .13 to .04 .00 to .07
.00 (.03) .00 (.03) .00 (.01)
.05 to .06 .04 to .06 .04 to .01
.01 (.01) .02 (.02) .01 (.01)
.05 to .003 .06 to .00 .00 to .04
.04 .03 .001
CWB-Organizational
Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism
.14 (.07) .18 (.06) .06 (.05)
.13 (.07) .16 (.06) .04 (.05)
.01 (.03) .01 (.03) .01 (.01)
.08 to .06 .07 to .05 .01 to .04
.01 (.02) .02 (.02) .01 (.01)
.02 to .06 .02 to .06 .03 to .01
.01 (.01) .03 (.01) .02 (.01)
.05 to .00 .06 to .01 .00 to .05
.01 .03 .01
CWB-Total
Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism
.21 (.06) .20 (.05) .05 (.05)
.19 (.07) .16 (.06) .03 (.05)
.02 (.03) .02 (.03) .01 (.01)
.09 to .05 .08 to .04 .004 to .05
.01 (.02) .01 (.02) .01(.01)
.02 to .06 .02 to .06 .03 to .004
.01 (.01) .02 (.01) .01 (.01)
.04 to .01 .06 to .00 .001 to .04
.03 .04 .004
Ns range from 331 to 346. Coefficients are unstandardized. Bold values are statistically significant at p < .05. Values in parentheses are standard errors.
of academic achievement were statistically significant. Thus, GPA and ITED did not significantly impact the personality-CWB associations. With a few exceptions, job satisfaction also did not mediate the association between personality and CWBs. The exceptions were the associations between Conscientiousness and Neuroticism and Organizational- and Total-CWBs. Even so, the ConscientiousnessCWB associations were similar in magnitude and statistical significance when examining the direct and indirect effects. Thus, job satisfaction accounted for some, but certainly not all, of the association between personality traits and CWBs. Regardless, in all instances, accounting for job satisfaction did not substantially change the personality-CWB associations.
4. Discussion We found evidence that personality traits assessed in adolescence were correlated with self-reported CWBs assessed in adulthood. As with prior studies, the traits of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness were the most relevant Big Five domains for associations with antisocial behaviors in the workplace. Prior academic achievement and job satisfaction did not seem to substantially influence these associations. Thus, the current study provides additional and complementary evidence to the existing longitudinal evidence indicating that personality traits relate to CWBs (Roberts et al., 2007).2 One of the distinguishing features of our analyses is the time interval between assessments. The Big Five domains were assessed during adolescence whereas workplace behaviors were assessed when participants were in their early- to mid-30s. Although we used a longer time-interval than many other studies, the magnitude of the correlations in the current study was similar to other studies (see Hershcovis et al., 2007, for a meta-analysis). Thus, it appears that the personality-CWB associations are relatively constant. Nonetheless, future studies should evaluate prospective associations between adolescent personality measures and adult outcomes when participants are even older and presumably even more established in their careers. The near-zero correlations between Neuroticism and CWBs may be surprising in light of previous research (e.g., Barrick et al., 2001). One possibility is that the strength of the association depends on which aspects of the respective constructs are captured by specific 2
We also replicated the prospective personality-CWB associations in the current sample using variants of the same personality scales used by Roberts et al. (2007). However, the time span between the assessment of FFM and CWBs is longer and provided a more stringent longitudinal test of the idea that personality traits are associated with CWBs.
measures. The trait domain of Neuroticism includes anger-hostility as well as susceptibilities to negative emotions such as anxiety, insecurity, and sadness. The Neuroticism items used in the current study had only a few items that covered the angry-hostility facet of this trait domain.3 Likewise, the items for Interpersonal CWBs may not reflect behaviors rooted in under-controlled anger. For instance, some CWB items used by Roberts et al. (2007) asked whether participants ‘‘have lost [their] temper, had a fight, or got into an argument with someone at work.’’ The items in the current study (e.g., ‘‘made fun of someone at work,’’ ‘‘repeated a rumor or gossip’’) did not seem to strongly tap the angry-hostility element of CWBs. In short, future studies should extensively evaluate how facets of Neuroticism relate to specific CWBs before drawing firm conclusions about the role of the Neuroticism domain. We also acknowledge that current metaanalytic research does not consistently link the domain of Neuroticism to crime and other antisocial behaviors (Miller & Lynam, 2001). 4.1. Limitations, future directions, and conclusions Although the current study provides a relatively rare opportunity to test prospective correlations between Big Five traits and CWBs, there are limitations. First, we relied on self-report methods to assess personality and CWBs. This is consistent with existing studies, but using only self-reports may inflate associations due to shared method variance. However, the time span in question helps to address this concern.4 Likewise, individuals may under-report, forget, or conceal their deviant or criminal behaviors (Thornberry & Krohn, 2000) so our measures might have underestimated CWBs. This concern is mitigated to some extent by the fact that participants were in an ongoing panel study and thus the data were not collected by their employers in a work setting. Still, future studies should use a multi-informant strategy for assessing personality and CWBs. Second, we used a single-item measure of job satisfaction and longer multi-item scales are more reliable and offer broader coverage of the construct. However, meta-analytic research suggests that single item job satisfaction measures correlate highly with longer measures (Wanous, Reichers, & Hudy, 1997). Thus, this limitation may not be as severe as it first appears. The final issue is that this is a correlational study and this places well-known limitations on causal inference. Likewise, we did not have the ability to control for adolescent measures of CWBs which would have been even more ideal than the present design for constraining inferences. 3 Only one out of the 12 Neuroticism items assessed hostility (‘‘I often get angry at the way people treat me’’). This item was correlated with Interpersonal CWBs (r = .11, p < .05). 4 This concern may also be alleviated given that we found similar personality-CWB associations when we used parent-reports of the MPQ when participants were 18 years old to predict CWB.
K. Le et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 61–62 (2014) 7–12
Besides addressing the limitations of the current work, there are a number of interesting questions for future studies. First, it will be important to test reciprocal associations between CWBs and personality development. As it stands, there is debate as to how personality changes occur in response to workplace experiences (McCrae & Costa, 2008; Scollon & Diener, 2006; Sutin & Costa, 2010; Sutin, Costa, Miech, & Eaton, 2009) and it is possible that engaging in CWBs may contribute to personality change (Roberts et al., 2006). We hope to test this idea by obtaining additional reports on the Big Five in future waves of data collection. Moreover, additional research is needed to study the precise mechanisms that explain the correlations between traits and CWBs. Processes such as selection, evocation, and manipulation could explain personality-outcome associations (see Scarr & McCartney, 1983). Indeed, some studies have successfully evaluated mediators such as work-related attitudes, perceptional processes, and emotional processes that explain connections between work and broad personality traits (e.g., Colbert et al., 2004; Fox et al., 2001; Mount et al., 2006). More research is needed on this topic but our analyses do not strongly suggest that job satisfaction is a substantial mediator. Last, there is considerable evidence pointing to the heritability of delinquency and criminality (e.g., Ferguson, 2010) and it would be interesting to evaluate how much overlap between personality and CWBs is attributable to common genetic influences on both constructs. In sum, we found evidence that personality traits such as Agreeableness and Conscientiousness were correlated with reports CWBs two decades later. These associations were largely independent of academic achievement and job satisfaction. These findings support the argument that personality attributes in adolescence are associated with consequential life outcomes.
References Ahadi, S., & Diener, E. (1989). Multiple determinants and effect size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 398–406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00223514.56.3.398. Appelbaum, S. H., Iaconi, G. D., & Matousek, A. (2007). Positive and negative deviant workplace behaviors: Causes, impacts, and solutions. Corporate Governance, 7, 586–598. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14720700710827176. Barling, J., Dupré, K. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2009). Predicting workplace aggression and violence. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 671–692. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163629. Barrick, M. R., Mount, K. M., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9–30. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/1468-2389.00160. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349–360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037// 0021-9010.85.3.349. Buss, D. (1993). Ways to curtail employee theft. Nation’s Business, 36–38. Camara, W. J., & Schneider, D. L. (1994). Integrity tests: Facts and unresolved issues. American Psychologist, 49, 112–119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003066X.49.2.112. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (2008). Temperament: An organizing paradigm for trait psychology. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 265–286). New York: Guilford Press. Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Interactive effects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 599–609. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.599. Conger, R. D., & Elder, G. H. Jr., (1994). Families in troubled times: Adapting to change in rural America. Chicago: Aldine-Gruyter Press. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1989). NEO PI/FFI manual supplement. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Cullen, M. J., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Personality and counterproductive workplace behavior. In M. R. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work (pp. 150–182). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1241–1255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00219010.90.6.1241. Donnellan, M. B., Conger, K. J., McAdams, K. K., & Neppl, T. K. (2009). Personal characteristics and resilience to economic hardship and its consequences:
11
Conceptual issues and empirical illustrations. Journal of Personality, 77, 1645–1676. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00596.x. Ferguson, C. J. (2010). Genetic contributions to antisocial personality and behavior: A meta-analytic review from an evolutionary perspective. The Journal of Social Psychology, 150, 160–180. Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 291–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1803. Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1990). Job attitudes and organizational withdrawal: An examination of retirement and other voluntary withdrawal behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 60–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(90)90007O. Hayes, A.F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from. Heller, D., Watson, D., & Ilies, R. (2004). The role of person versus situation in life satisfaction: A critical examination. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 574–600. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.4.574. Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupré, K. E., Inness, M., et al. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 228–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00219010.92.1.228. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114–158). New York, NY: Guilford. Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., & Ilies, R. (2006). Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance: Test of a multilevel model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 126–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.126. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr., (2008). The five-factor theory of personality. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 159–181). New York: Guilford. Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. (2001). Structural models of personality and their relation to antisocial behavior: A meta-analytic review. Criminology, 39, 765–798. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2001.tb00940.x. Mount, M., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating effects of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 59, 591–622. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.17446570.2006.00048.x. Murphy, K. R. (1993). Honesty in the workplace. The Cypress series in work and science. Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401–421. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190127. Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2002). Narcissism and counterproductive work behavior: Do bigger egos mean bigger problems? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 126–134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/14682389.00199. Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 777–796. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.336. Roberts, B. W., Harms, P. D., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2007). Predicting the counterproductive employee in a child-to-adult prospective study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1427–1436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00219010.92.5.1427. Roberts, B. W., Walton, K., Bogg, T., & Caspi, A. (2006). De-investment in work and non-normative personality trait change in young adulthood. European Journal of Personality, 20, 461–474. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.607. Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555–572. http://www.jstor.org/stable/256693. Salgado, J. F. (2002). The Big Five personality dimensions and counterproductive behaviors. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 117–125. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00198. Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environments: A theory of genotype ? environment effects. Child Development, 54, 424–435. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1129703. Scollon, C. N., & Diener, E. (2006). Love, work, and changes in extraversion and neuroticism over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1152–1165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1152. Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Schultz, J. (2008). Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 138–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.138. Sutin, A. R., & Costa, P. T. (2010). Reciprocal influences of personality and job characteristics across middle adulthood. Journal of Personality, 78, 257–288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00615.x. Sutin, A. R., Costa, P. T., Miech, R., & Eaton, W. W. (2009). Personality and career success: Concurrent and longitudinal relations. European Journal of Personality, 23, 71–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.704. Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (2008). Exploring personality through test construction: Development of the multidimensional personality questionnaire. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The sage handbook of personality theory and assessment. Personality Measurement and Testing (Vol. II, pp. 261–292). London: Sage.
12
K. Le et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 61–62 (2014) 7–12
Thornberry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D. (2000). The self-report method for measuring delinquency and crime. Criminal justice 2000: Measurement and analysis of crime and justice (Vol. 4). Washington, DC: Department of Justice.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247–252. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.247.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Workers behaving badly: Associations between adolescent reports of the Big Five and counterproductive work behaviors in adulthood Kimdy Le a,⇑, M. Brent Donnellan b, Sarah K. Spilman c, Olivia Pavlov Garcia d, Rand Conger c a
Indiana University Purdue University Columbus, USA Michigan State University, USA c University of California, Davis, USA d Indiana University, Bloomington, USA b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 23 February 2013 Received in revised form 24 October 2013 Accepted 13 December 2013 Available online 18 January 2014 Keywords: Personality Counterproductive workplace behaviors Deviance Longitudinal Big five traits
a b s t r a c t There is increasing interest in identifying the personality traits correlated with the propensity to engage in counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs). The current study contributes to this literature by conceptually replicating and extending previous research documenting associations between personality traits and CWBs. Adolescent reports of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness were correlated with self-reports of CWBs 18 years later. The effects held even after controlling for indicators of adolescent academic performance and for current reports of job satisfaction. These results suggest that personality traits assessed in adolescence are prospectively associated with the propensity to engage in CWBs in adulthood. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
1. Introduction Counterproductive workplace behaviors (CWBs) include actions that harm organizations such as absenteeism, substance abuse on the job, and theft (i.e. organizational CWBs), as well as harassment and aggressive acts directed toward co-workers (i.e., interpersonal CWBs; Robinson & Bennett, 1995). These antisocial behaviors in the workplace pose enormous costs to organizations in terms of morale, lost resources, and diminished productivity with economic estimates ranging between $6 and $200 billion annually (Appelbaum, Iaconi, & Matousek, 2007; Buss, 1993; Camara & Schneider, 1994; Murphy, 1993). In light of these negative consequences, there is interest in identifying factors associated with the propensity to engage in CWBs. The existing literature often focuses on work-related variables surrounding CWBs such as job satisfaction and work commitment (Colbert, Mount, Harter, Witt, & Barrick, 2004; Penney & Spector, 2005). Other research also evaluates how specific personality traits are correlated with CWBs (Judge, Scott, & Ilies, 2006; Penney & Spector, 2002) although the time interval of these studies is often relatively short intervals (Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001; Judge et al., 2006). To add to the growing personality trait literature, the current study evaluates whether the Big Five traits in adolescence are associated with reports of ⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Indiana University Purdue University Columbus, 4601 Central Avenue, Columbus, IN 47201, USA. Tel.: +1 8123487261. E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Le). 0191-8869/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.12.016
CWBs in adulthood. The approximately 18-year time interval between the assessment of traits and CWBs is a relatively unique feature of the current design. In addition, we determine whether personality traits are related to CWBs above and beyond current reports of job satisfaction, a frequent correlate of CWBs (Dalal, 2005; Fox et al., 2001; Hanisch & Hulin, 1990). Thus, the current study provides an important replication and extension of recent longitudinal research pointing to a correlation between personality traits and CWBs (Roberts, Harms, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2007). 1.1. Personality traits and CWBs A number of studies in organizational psychology have evaluated how personality traits are related to workplace experiences and CWBs (Barling, Dupré, & Kelloway, 2009; Cullen & Sackett, 2003; Hershcovis et al., 2007; Mount, Ilies, & Johnson, 2006; Salgado, 2002). One of the most commonly used frameworks for organizing personality traits is the Five Factor Model (FFM) or the Big Five taxonomy (see John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008). This model classifies personality traits under five broad domains: Extraversion (e.g., outgoing, sociable, assertive), Agreeableness (empathetic, friendly, modest), Conscientiousness (organized, self-controlled, reliable), Neuroticism (tense, easily distressed, susceptible to negative emotions), and Openness (curious, imaginative, open-minded). Mount et al. (2006) found that low Conscientiousness and high Neuroticism were associated with Organizational CWBs (behaviors like stealing and absenteeism)
8
K. Le et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 61–62 (2014) 7–12
whereas low Agreeableness was associated with Interpersonal CWBs (behaviors like gossiping, teasing, and aggression). The associations between CWBs and Agreeableness and Conscientiousness are consistent with the associations between personality traits and general antisocial behaviors like crime and delinquency (Miller & Lynam, 2001; Ozer & Benet-Martínez, 2006) as well as other work showing that trait anger (i.e., low Agreeableness) is related to CWBs (Hershcovis et al., 2007). In short, there are indications that individuals who engage in CWBs tend to have a hostile and antagonistic interpersonal orientation and lack self-control. The goal of the present study is to evaluate whether the Big Five traits in early adolescence are associated with future reports of CWBs in adulthood. This kind of design is useful because it helps demonstrate temporal precedence between personality traits and CWBs. For example, a recent study found that personality traits related to self-control, aggression, and a dispositional interest in close relationships at age 18 were prospectively associated with CWBs at age 26 (Roberts et al., 2007). These findings are broadly consistent with the FFM traits outlined above and bolster the case that personality traits are one correlate of complex, multiply determined outcomes like CWBs. To be sure, effect size estimates related to personality traits are likely to be modest (Ahadi & Diener, 1989). Indeed, it is important to acknowledge that personality factors are likely to explain only some of the variability in the propensity to engage in CWBs. According to Social Control theory (Hirschi, 1969), the social bonds individuals have to conventional institutions such as families and organizations prevent deviance. When these bonds are broken, the individual is no longer committed to conformity and instead may engage in antisocial actions. In applying this idea to the workplace, it is plausible that employees who are satisfied with their job may refrain from engaging in CWBs under the idea that satisfaction serves as a proxy for investment in the organization (Hershcovis et al., 2007; Roberts et al., 2007). It is also useful to consider the possibility that reports of job satisfaction may also reflect personality attributes and the consequences of person-environment transactions in the workplace (Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001; Cullen & Sackett, 2003; Roberts, Walton, Bogg, & Caspi, 2006). For example, individuals with certain attributes like high conscientiousness might be rewarded by organizations and thereby report higher levels of job satisfaction, whereas attributes like neuroticism may predispose individuals toward lower levels of job satisfaction (Heller, Watson, & Ilies, 2004; Steel, Schmidt, & Schultz, 2008). These possibilities are one reason why it is difficult to provide an unambiguous interpretation of the correlations between job satisfaction and CWBs (see e.g., Hershcovis et al., 2007). In light of this issue, we tested whether personality-CWB associations are detected in regression models that include variables like job satisfaction (Roberts et al., 2007). We also introduce controls for school performance to test whether personality traits have unique effects beyond indicators of academic achievement. 1.2. Current study The goal of the current study is to test whether self-ratings of personality during adolescence are associated with CWBs in adulthood. Based on previous studies (Mount et al., 2006; Roberts et al., 2007), we expected that low Conscientiousness would be related to CWBs, particularly Organizational CWBs. In addition, we expected low Agreeableness and high Neuroticism to be related to Interpersonal CWBs. In sum, the current study is both a conceptual replication and extension of Roberts et al. (2007). Indeed, three major differences are worth noting. First, we used a longer interval (18 years) to evaluate associations between personality and CWBs. Our sample was younger than the Roberts et al. (2007) sample when they reported personality (approximately age 16 instead of 18) and older when they reported on CWBs (approximately age
35 instead of 26). The extended interval of this study provides a rigorous test of the correlations between personality traits and workplace behaviors. Second, we assessed personality with the NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1989), a personality measure tied to the FFM, whereas Roberts et al. (2007) used a measure of personality tied to Tellegen’s three factor model of personality (e.g., Clark & Watson, 2008; Tellegen & Waller, 2008). Using different personality measures is important for demonstrating that personality findings are robust across different trait measures. Third, we used Bennett and Robinson’s (2000) well-validated scale of CWBs whereas Roberts et al. (2007) assessed CWBs through information derived from interviews. Whereas Roberts et al. (2007) assessed CWBs through information derived from interviews. Thus, the current study used a different approach to measuring the primary dependent variables. Nonetheless, convergence in results would increase confidence in the correlation between personality traits in CWBs. 2. Method 2.1. Participants The data used to test the associations between the Big Five domains and CWBs were obtained from participants in the Iowa Youth and Families Project (IYFP). The IYFP began as a study of 451 families based in rural Iowa. A complete description of this project is available in Conger and Elder (1994) and details relevant to the Big Five assessments are provided in Donnellan, Conger, McAdams, and Neppl (2009). The IYFP started in 1989, when the target child was in the seventh grade, and continues to the present day as targets have transitioned to adulthood. Given the demography of Iowa at the time, the participating families were European American. Of the 451 participants (45% male) in the IYFP data set, 386 (86%) provided Big Five scores in adolescence. Of those participants with Big Five information, 310 (80%) and 296 (77%) had reports of CWBs in 2007 and 2010, respectively. 1.2. Measures 2.2.1. Big Five domains In 1991 and 1992 (average age = 15.09 and 16.07, respectively), the target youth completed the 60 items of the NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1989) using a 5-point scale (1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree). The internal consistencies of these scales ranged from .72 (Openness) to .85 (Neuroticism). 2.2.2. Academic achievement Academic achievement was assessed with two variables. First, GPA was assessed in 1991 (9th grade; M = 2.91; SD = .71) and 1992 (10th grade; M = 2.94, SD = .72) on a 0 (F) to 4 (A) scale commonly used to compute grades. We averaged GPAs across these two waves to derive a composite GPA measure (M = 2.92, SD = .69). In addition, in 1991 and 1992, percentile rankings on the Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITED) standardized test were obtained from school records. 2.2.3. Counterproductive workplace behaviors (CWB) In 2007 and 2010 (average age = 31.72 and 35.04, respectively), CWBs were assessed using the scales developed by Bennett and Robinson (2000) on a 7-point scale, (1 = never, 4 = several times a year, to 7 = daily). We averaged across the two assessment periods and created 3 composites: Interpersonal CWBs (7 items, a = .85), Organizational CWBs (12 items, a = .84), and a Total score (19 items, a = .89). We used the average composites to generate a more reliable estimate of propensity to engage in CWBs but results were similar when conducted separately at each wave. Information about each item is presented in Table 1.
9
K. Le et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 61–62 (2014) 7–12 Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for the CWB Scales & Items. 2007
2010
Stability Coefficient
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Interpersonal CWB Made fun of someone at work Said something hurtful to someone at work Made an ethnic, religious, or racial remark at work Cursed someone at work Played a mean prank on someone at work Acted rudely toward someone at work Publicly embarrassed someone at work
1.66 2.94 1.50 1.29 1.79 1.24 1.73 1.10
.76 1.93 .99 .87 1.50 .77 1.18 .48
1.58 2.63 1.46 1.42 1.61 1.19 1.67 1.09
.77 1.87 .99 1.09 1.34 .64 1.21 .47
.63 .54 .40 .43 .38 .51 .39 .05
Organizational CWB Taken property from work without permission Spent too much time fantasizing or daydreaming instead of working Falsified a receipt to get reimbursed for more money than you spent on business expenses Taken an additional or longer break than is acceptable at your workplace Come in late to work without permission Littered your work environment Neglected to follow your boss’s instructions Intentionally worked slower than you could have worked Discussed confidential company information with an unauthorized person Used an illegal drug or consumed alcohol on the job Put little effort into your work Dragged out work in order to get overtime
1.62 1.27 2.59 1.03 2.35 2.16 1.33 1.59 1.89 1.24 1.08 1.76 1.14
.62 .79 1.84 .23 1.74 1.64 1.08 1.14 1.43 .72 .53 1.23 .62
1.48 1.17 2.46 1.02 2.09 1.79 1.17 1.40 1.65 1.19 1.09 1.61 1.14
.52 .57 1.77 .22 1.56 1.35 .71 .96 1.23 .62 .55 1.12 .62
.60 .50 .40 .01 .36 .46 .43 .47 .38 .19 .48 .46 .50
Participants responded to each item using the following scale: 1(never), 2(once a year), 3 (twice a year), 4(several times a year), 5(monthly), 6(weekly), and 7(daily). For 2007, the CWB-I scale included 399 participants and the CWB-O scale included 400 participants. In 2010, both scales included 388 participants.
Table 2 Correlations and Descriptive Statistics of Personality, GPA, Job Satisfaction, and CWBs. 1 Gender1+ Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness GPA Iowa Test % Rank Job Satisfaction CWB – I CWB – O CWB – Total Mean (SD)
2
–
3 .16
4 .19 .36
– –
5
.03 .34 .43 –
6 .25 .35 .45 .49
7 .22 .18 .12 .04 .06
–
8 .12 .20 .26 .27 .11 .21
–
9 .09 .13 .17 .14 .08 .28 .80
–
10 .02 .03 .06 .18 .11 .11 .03 .01
–
11
.32 .07 .20 .16 .03 .08 .11 .08 .14
–
.14 .04 .12 .16 .06 .03 .03 .02 .17 .57
– – –
3.70 (.50)
3.56 (.44)
3.53 (.53)
2.80 (.63)
3.28 (.49)
2.92 (.69)
–
4.09 (.66)
1.66 (.76)
1.62 (.62)
12 .24 .06 .18 .18 .05 .02 .07 .02 .18 .85 .92 – 1.63 (.59)
Bold values indicate p < .05; Associations P |.11| are statistically significant at p < .05. We tested for gender differences in the personality-CWB associations and found little compelling evidence that gender moderated these associations. These results can be provided upon request. + 0 = females and 1 = males. 1
2.2.4. Job satisfaction Job satisfaction was assessed in 2007 and 2010 using a single item, ‘‘How happy are you with this job?’’ Participants responded on a 5-point scale (1 = very happy to 5 = very unhappy). We recoded responses so that higher numbers indicated higher satisfaction levels. We averaged ratings of job satisfaction across 2007 and 2010 to create the job satisfaction score but results were similar when both scores were used in separate analyses. Descriptive statistics are reported in Table 2. 3. Results 3.1. Associations between Big Five measures and outcomes Table 2 reports correlations between the primary variables. Adolescent Agreeableness and Conscientiousness were associated with Interpersonal, Organizational, and Total CWBs. In addition, adolescent Conscientiousness was positively associated with later job satisfaction. Consistent with previous work, job satisfaction
was negatively related to CWBs. Thus, the initial inspection of correlations was generally consistent with prediction and the existing literature. 3.2. Mediation analyses To test whether the associations between personality and CWBs were independent of academic achievement and job satisfaction, we performed mediation analyses using the bootstrapping method (Hayes, 2012). We predicted CWB from personality, academic achievement (GPA and ITED scores), and job satisfaction. We used a model where GPA, ITED scores, and job satisfaction were parallel mediators for the association between personality and CWB (Hayes, 2012, Fig. 2B). Table 3 shows the effects of Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Neuroticism as well as the indirect effects of the mediators.1 As Table 3 reveals, none of the indirect effects 1 Although we performed the analyses with Extraversion and Openness, we excluded them from the table to save space. These results are available upon request.
10
K. Le et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 61–62 (2014) 7–12
Table 3 Mediation analysis predicting CWBs from personality, GPA, Iowa Test of Educational Development (ITED), and Job satisfaction Associations with
Total effect of personality
Direct effect of personality
Indirect effect of GPA
95% CI
Indirect effect of ITED
95% CI
Indirect effect of job satisfaction
95% CI
Total r2
CWB-Interpersonal
Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism
.33 (.09) .22 (.07) .03 (.06)
.29 (.09) .17 (.07) .00 (.06)
.03 (.05) .04 (.04) .02 (.02)
.13 to .05 .13 to .04 .00 to .07
.00 (.03) .00 (.03) .00 (.01)
.05 to .06 .04 to .06 .04 to .01
.01 (.01) .02 (.02) .01 (.01)
.05 to .003 .06 to .00 .00 to .04
.04 .03 .001
CWB-Organizational
Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism
.14 (.07) .18 (.06) .06 (.05)
.13 (.07) .16 (.06) .04 (.05)
.01 (.03) .01 (.03) .01 (.01)
.08 to .06 .07 to .05 .01 to .04
.01 (.02) .02 (.02) .01 (.01)
.02 to .06 .02 to .06 .03 to .01
.01 (.01) .03 (.01) .02 (.01)
.05 to .00 .06 to .01 .00 to .05
.01 .03 .01
CWB-Total
Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism
.21 (.06) .20 (.05) .05 (.05)
.19 (.07) .16 (.06) .03 (.05)
.02 (.03) .02 (.03) .01 (.01)
.09 to .05 .08 to .04 .004 to .05
.01 (.02) .01 (.02) .01(.01)
.02 to .06 .02 to .06 .03 to .004
.01 (.01) .02 (.01) .01 (.01)
.04 to .01 .06 to .00 .001 to .04
.03 .04 .004
Ns range from 331 to 346. Coefficients are unstandardized. Bold values are statistically significant at p < .05. Values in parentheses are standard errors.
of academic achievement were statistically significant. Thus, GPA and ITED did not significantly impact the personality-CWB associations. With a few exceptions, job satisfaction also did not mediate the association between personality and CWBs. The exceptions were the associations between Conscientiousness and Neuroticism and Organizational- and Total-CWBs. Even so, the ConscientiousnessCWB associations were similar in magnitude and statistical significance when examining the direct and indirect effects. Thus, job satisfaction accounted for some, but certainly not all, of the association between personality traits and CWBs. Regardless, in all instances, accounting for job satisfaction did not substantially change the personality-CWB associations.
4. Discussion We found evidence that personality traits assessed in adolescence were correlated with self-reported CWBs assessed in adulthood. As with prior studies, the traits of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness were the most relevant Big Five domains for associations with antisocial behaviors in the workplace. Prior academic achievement and job satisfaction did not seem to substantially influence these associations. Thus, the current study provides additional and complementary evidence to the existing longitudinal evidence indicating that personality traits relate to CWBs (Roberts et al., 2007).2 One of the distinguishing features of our analyses is the time interval between assessments. The Big Five domains were assessed during adolescence whereas workplace behaviors were assessed when participants were in their early- to mid-30s. Although we used a longer time-interval than many other studies, the magnitude of the correlations in the current study was similar to other studies (see Hershcovis et al., 2007, for a meta-analysis). Thus, it appears that the personality-CWB associations are relatively constant. Nonetheless, future studies should evaluate prospective associations between adolescent personality measures and adult outcomes when participants are even older and presumably even more established in their careers. The near-zero correlations between Neuroticism and CWBs may be surprising in light of previous research (e.g., Barrick et al., 2001). One possibility is that the strength of the association depends on which aspects of the respective constructs are captured by specific 2
We also replicated the prospective personality-CWB associations in the current sample using variants of the same personality scales used by Roberts et al. (2007). However, the time span between the assessment of FFM and CWBs is longer and provided a more stringent longitudinal test of the idea that personality traits are associated with CWBs.
measures. The trait domain of Neuroticism includes anger-hostility as well as susceptibilities to negative emotions such as anxiety, insecurity, and sadness. The Neuroticism items used in the current study had only a few items that covered the angry-hostility facet of this trait domain.3 Likewise, the items for Interpersonal CWBs may not reflect behaviors rooted in under-controlled anger. For instance, some CWB items used by Roberts et al. (2007) asked whether participants ‘‘have lost [their] temper, had a fight, or got into an argument with someone at work.’’ The items in the current study (e.g., ‘‘made fun of someone at work,’’ ‘‘repeated a rumor or gossip’’) did not seem to strongly tap the angry-hostility element of CWBs. In short, future studies should extensively evaluate how facets of Neuroticism relate to specific CWBs before drawing firm conclusions about the role of the Neuroticism domain. We also acknowledge that current metaanalytic research does not consistently link the domain of Neuroticism to crime and other antisocial behaviors (Miller & Lynam, 2001). 4.1. Limitations, future directions, and conclusions Although the current study provides a relatively rare opportunity to test prospective correlations between Big Five traits and CWBs, there are limitations. First, we relied on self-report methods to assess personality and CWBs. This is consistent with existing studies, but using only self-reports may inflate associations due to shared method variance. However, the time span in question helps to address this concern.4 Likewise, individuals may under-report, forget, or conceal their deviant or criminal behaviors (Thornberry & Krohn, 2000) so our measures might have underestimated CWBs. This concern is mitigated to some extent by the fact that participants were in an ongoing panel study and thus the data were not collected by their employers in a work setting. Still, future studies should use a multi-informant strategy for assessing personality and CWBs. Second, we used a single-item measure of job satisfaction and longer multi-item scales are more reliable and offer broader coverage of the construct. However, meta-analytic research suggests that single item job satisfaction measures correlate highly with longer measures (Wanous, Reichers, & Hudy, 1997). Thus, this limitation may not be as severe as it first appears. The final issue is that this is a correlational study and this places well-known limitations on causal inference. Likewise, we did not have the ability to control for adolescent measures of CWBs which would have been even more ideal than the present design for constraining inferences. 3 Only one out of the 12 Neuroticism items assessed hostility (‘‘I often get angry at the way people treat me’’). This item was correlated with Interpersonal CWBs (r = .11, p < .05). 4 This concern may also be alleviated given that we found similar personality-CWB associations when we used parent-reports of the MPQ when participants were 18 years old to predict CWB.
K. Le et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 61–62 (2014) 7–12
Besides addressing the limitations of the current work, there are a number of interesting questions for future studies. First, it will be important to test reciprocal associations between CWBs and personality development. As it stands, there is debate as to how personality changes occur in response to workplace experiences (McCrae & Costa, 2008; Scollon & Diener, 2006; Sutin & Costa, 2010; Sutin, Costa, Miech, & Eaton, 2009) and it is possible that engaging in CWBs may contribute to personality change (Roberts et al., 2006). We hope to test this idea by obtaining additional reports on the Big Five in future waves of data collection. Moreover, additional research is needed to study the precise mechanisms that explain the correlations between traits and CWBs. Processes such as selection, evocation, and manipulation could explain personality-outcome associations (see Scarr & McCartney, 1983). Indeed, some studies have successfully evaluated mediators such as work-related attitudes, perceptional processes, and emotional processes that explain connections between work and broad personality traits (e.g., Colbert et al., 2004; Fox et al., 2001; Mount et al., 2006). More research is needed on this topic but our analyses do not strongly suggest that job satisfaction is a substantial mediator. Last, there is considerable evidence pointing to the heritability of delinquency and criminality (e.g., Ferguson, 2010) and it would be interesting to evaluate how much overlap between personality and CWBs is attributable to common genetic influences on both constructs. In sum, we found evidence that personality traits such as Agreeableness and Conscientiousness were correlated with reports CWBs two decades later. These associations were largely independent of academic achievement and job satisfaction. These findings support the argument that personality attributes in adolescence are associated with consequential life outcomes.
References Ahadi, S., & Diener, E. (1989). Multiple determinants and effect size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 398–406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00223514.56.3.398. Appelbaum, S. H., Iaconi, G. D., & Matousek, A. (2007). Positive and negative deviant workplace behaviors: Causes, impacts, and solutions. Corporate Governance, 7, 586–598. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14720700710827176. Barling, J., Dupré, K. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2009). Predicting workplace aggression and violence. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 671–692. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163629. Barrick, M. R., Mount, K. M., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9–30. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/1468-2389.00160. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349–360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037// 0021-9010.85.3.349. Buss, D. (1993). Ways to curtail employee theft. Nation’s Business, 36–38. Camara, W. J., & Schneider, D. L. (1994). Integrity tests: Facts and unresolved issues. American Psychologist, 49, 112–119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003066X.49.2.112. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (2008). Temperament: An organizing paradigm for trait psychology. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 265–286). New York: Guilford Press. Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Interactive effects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 599–609. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.599. Conger, R. D., & Elder, G. H. Jr., (1994). Families in troubled times: Adapting to change in rural America. Chicago: Aldine-Gruyter Press. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1989). NEO PI/FFI manual supplement. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Cullen, M. J., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Personality and counterproductive workplace behavior. In M. R. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work (pp. 150–182). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1241–1255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00219010.90.6.1241. Donnellan, M. B., Conger, K. J., McAdams, K. K., & Neppl, T. K. (2009). Personal characteristics and resilience to economic hardship and its consequences:
11
Conceptual issues and empirical illustrations. Journal of Personality, 77, 1645–1676. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00596.x. Ferguson, C. J. (2010). Genetic contributions to antisocial personality and behavior: A meta-analytic review from an evolutionary perspective. The Journal of Social Psychology, 150, 160–180. Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 291–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1803. Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1990). Job attitudes and organizational withdrawal: An examination of retirement and other voluntary withdrawal behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 60–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(90)90007O. Hayes, A.F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from
12
K. Le et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 61–62 (2014) 7–12
Thornberry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D. (2000). The self-report method for measuring delinquency and crime. Criminal justice 2000: Measurement and analysis of crime and justice (Vol. 4). Washington, DC: Department of Justice.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247–252. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.247.