|
Article Excerpt
"When in Rome, live as the Romans do: when elsewhere, live as they live elsewhere."
~St. Ambrose (c. 339-97)
The advice, given by the Bishop of Milan to St. Augustine in the 4th Century, may seem an esoteric tangent to the issue of employee performance in organizations. However, as we try to refine our approach to understanding the relationships between individuals and their performance outcomes in organizations, the context of such interactions should not be underestimated. Although examination of direct linkages between employee personality dimensions and performance outcomes is receiving increasing support (Hurtz and Donovan, 2000; Motowidlo and Van Scotter, 1994; Van Scotter and Motowidlo, 1996), what remains less clear is the interaction and influence of the context or place on this relationship. Are dimensions of personality directly responsible for employee success in organizations, or do preferences employees have for factors in their work environment play a more significant role in the relationship? Although selecting employees on the basis of individual dispositions may have a positive impact on employee attitudes and performance, personality-based employee selection processes are notoriously inaccurate (Arthur et al., 2001). And considering the increasingly large spans of control and reduced contact between employees and managers in work situations (De Meuse et al., 2001; Henricks, 2001), an over-reliance on employee selection processes as a means of improving performance and commitment may be a less effective approach than effectively managing work environments. In addition, many managers do not have much flexibility in their staffing patterns in the short-term, and managers must "deal with the hand they are dealt." In such situations, controlling the work environment is often the most feasible short-term option, beyond skill training, for improving outcomes.
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between personality, work environment preferences, and the outcome variables, performance and commitment. We develop hypotheses for and test the model presented in Figure I. In developing our model, we begin with a discussion of the relationship between personality and performance, followed by a literature review of the relationships between Big Five personality factors, work environment, and employee performance and commitment. We then develop and test hypotheses suggesting that the personality-employee outcome relationship is mediated by work environment preferences.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Personality, Work Environment, and Performance
According to Schneider (1987), "the people make the place," and people are differentially attracted to, differentially selected, and differentially leave organizations. Costa, McCrae, and Holland (1984) assert that people begin this process by selecting into vocations that match their personalities. Similarity between a job applicant's values and the values of recruiters and employees within organizations has been shown to result in improved work attitudes and increased performance after organizational entry (Judge and Cable, 1997; Chatman, 1991). Research by Cable and Judge (1994) and Judge and Cable (1997) provides evidence that applicants pro-actively choose such organizational environments based on individual preferences, as they found that job candidates seek organizations with reward systems and cultures that fit their personalities. Of even greater significance is the possibility that the relationship between personality characteristics and specific work environments may influence performance (Hurtz and Donovan, 2000).
The general trend in the research has been towards increased optimism regarding the utility of personality tests in personnel selection with the goal of ultimately enhancing job performance (Behling, 1998; Hogan et al., 1996; Hurtz and Donovan, 2000; Mount and Barrick, 1995). The general consensus has been that personality holds utility as a predictor of job performance, specifically the conscientiousness dimension (Behling, 1998). Research has also provided evidence of linkages between personality dimensions with narrower facets of performance. Research by Motowidlo and Van Scotter (1994; Van Scotter and Motowidlo, 1996) suggests that personality has a larger impact on contextual (as opposed to task-oriented) dimensions of performance; specifically, extraversion and agreeableness were more strongly related to interpersonal facilitation. Hurtz and Donovan (2000) found that emotional stability and agreeableness were also significant predictors of interpersonal facilitation, and emotional stability was a predictor of task performance.
However, a number of different studies have begun to illustrate that the effects of personality on performance may be more indirect than bivariate. Recent research indicates the intervening effects of performance expectancies, self-efficacy, and goal-setting on the relationship between conscientiousness and performance (Barrick et al., 1993; Gellatly, 1996; Martocchio and Judge, 1997). These studies illuminate a significant gap in the literature--that the research to date has disproportionately focused on the direct linkage between personality and performance, and "... if we are to truly understand the relationship between personality and job performance, we must move beyond this bivariate relationship and toward specifying the intervening variables that link these domains" (Hurtz and Donovan, 2000: 877). Although specific personality traits like conscientiousness (Behling, 1998) have been linked to a variety of employee outcomes, what remains unclear is the nature of the relationship between personality, work environment preferences, and such outcomes. It is possible that personality is primarily expressed in individual preferences for work environments, and that the direct effects of personality on workplace outcomes are fully or partially mediated by such preferences. Thus, we may find that specific work environment preferences may be more substantial predictors of employee outcomes in organizations than Big Five personality factors.
This study utilizes Barrick and Mount's (1991) Big Five factors of personality, and Moos' (1994) conceptualization of work environments as the theoretical bases for the constructs of personality and work environments. Barrick and Mount's (1991) Big Five factors represent a widely accepted approach to conceptualizing personality, as meta-analyses consistently support the construct validity of this approach (Mount and Barrick, 1995; Salgado, 1997; Tett et al., 1991). The Big Five factors consist of an individual's openness to experience (proactive seeking, toleration for and exploration of the unfamiliar), conscientiousness (thorough approach, hard-working, organized), extraversion (the need for stimulation, desire for activity levels with interpersonal interaction), agreeableness (cooperative nature, likeability), and emotional stability, (calm and secure, low in anxiety).
According to Moos (1981), work environment preferences can be measured using three dimensions of work environment settings: system maintenance, goal orientation, and relationship dimensions. System maintenance refers to how orderly and organized the work setting is, how clear it is in its expectations, and how much control it maintains. Goal...
|
