Dr Beneve-IB-8

r Academy of Management Annals 2018, Vol. 12, No. 2, 467–493. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0008

PERSONALITY CHANGE: IMPLICATIONS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR

STEFANO TASSELLI1

Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University

MARTIN KILDUFF BLAINE LANDIS

UCL School of Management, University College London

This article focuses on an emergent debate in organizational behavior concerning per- sonality stability and change. We introduce foundational psychological research con- cerning whether individual personality, in terms of traits, needs, and personal constructs, is fixed or changeable. Based on this background, we review recent research evidence on the antecedents and outcomes associated with personality change. We build on this review of personality change to introduce new directions for personality re- search in organizational behavior. Specifically, we discuss how a view of personality as changeable contributes to key topics for organizational behavior research and how this new approach can help broaden and deepen the scope of personality theory and mea- surement. The study of personality change offers a range of new ideas and research opportunities for the study of organizational behavior.

We live in an age in which people plan, pursue, and experience individual changes that affect career and life trajectories. People improve their educational credentials, change residences, move jobs, switch na- tionalities, and undergo gender reassignment. All of this is familiar to organizational researchers. But, evi- dence and theory concerning personality change are only just emerging in the organizational behavior re- search landscape, despite personality psychology findings (see Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006, for a meta-analysis), practitioner attention (Alicke & Sedikides, 2011), and mass media interest (Soto, 2016). Organizational research (Dalal, Meyer, Bradshaw, Green, Kelly, & Zhu, 2015; Li, Barrick, Zimmerman, & Chiaburu, 2014a) emphasizes the stability of person- ality (McCrae & Costa, 2003, 2008) rather than change of personality. There has been neglect of the possibil- ity that personality can change and neglect of when and how such changes occur.

The view of personality as a stable aspect of the individual self has contributed greatly to the

understanding of human behavior in organizations (Roberts, Kuncel, Shiner, Caspi, & Goldberg, 2007). Personality, as a stable set of traits, represents a core construct, asdiscussed innumerousreviews(Schmitt, 2014), special issues (Casciaro, Barsade, Edmondson, Gibson, Krackhardt, & Labianca, 2015), and chapters in almost every organizational behavior textbook (Robbins & Judge, 2017). Stability in personality mat- ters for organizations because it helps us understand people’s behavior in many work-related domains, in- cluding employee performance (Grant & Parker, 2009; Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006; Organ, Podsakoff, & Podsakoff, 2010; Parker & Collins, 2010), social net- works (Feiler & Kleinbaum, 2015; Klein, Lim, Saltz, & Mayer, 2004; Landis, 2016), employee withdrawal (Sackett, 2002; Zimmermann, 2008), and employee retention(Li,Fay,Frese,Harms,&Gao,2014b).Inallof this research, there has been an explicit or implicit emphasis on the stability of personality.

A view of personality as changeable challenges current perspectives in organizational behavior. For researchers, treating personality as changeable allows consideration of the effects of self-development, organizational events, and external events and pro- cesses on individuals’ work-related dispositions (Boyce, Wood, Daly, & Sedikides, 2015). In place of an exclusive focus on personality as a fixed attribute of individ- uals, researchers can consider personality change as adependentvariable.Personalitycanbeconsideredas

We thank Matthew Cronin and Daan van Knippenberg for their editorial guidance, and two anonymous reviewers for their suggestions. The paper benefited from comments from reading groups and discussions at the UCL School of Management, University College London, and Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University.

1 Corresponding author (tasselli@rsm.nl).

467

Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

a set of attributes that can be modified by events and processes. An emphasis on changeable personality has implications for numerous areas of inquiry, in- cluding leadership (Balkundi, Kilduff, & Harrison, 2011), personality-fit research (Schneider, Smith, Taylor, & Fleenor, 1998), task design (Lodi-Smith & Roberts, 2007), personnel selection and development (Harms, Spain, & Hannah, 2011), and job performance (Deinert, Homan, Boer, Voelpel, & Gutermann, 2015). Even modest changes in personality traits can result in “profound” consequences for individuals (Roberts, Wood, & Caspi, 2008: 383). For consumers of orga- nizational behavior research, such as students and managers, treating personal characteristics as change- able promotes a developmental mindset linked to resilience, low stress, and achievement (Yeager & Dweck, 2012).

Personality change in organizational behavior has been neglected, in part, because researchers have tended to render such change “impossible by defi- nition” (Gendlin, 1964: 101). Research on the Big Five personality taxonomy (neuroticism, extraver- sion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) characterizes these traits as “the basic dispositions that . . . endure through adult- hood” (McCrae & Costa, 2003: 3). Similarly, in orga- nizational behavior research, the emphasis on the stability of personality is relatively ubiquitous. Thus, a recent review states that personality traits “reflect an individual’s enduring patterns of cognition, mo- tivation, and behavior exhibited across contexts” (Li, Fay, Frese, Harms, & Gao, 2014).

In our review, we balance this emphasis on per- sonality stability with a review of ideas and evidence concerning personality change. We draw from the debate in organization and management research contrasting stability and change. This debate per- meates management research at the macro level (e.g., organizational ecology vs. strategic choice) and at the organizational level, where identity is either seen as enduring (Albert & Whetten, 1985) oridentityis seenas emergent (Gioia, Schultz, & Corley, 2000). At the level of individual persons, organizational behaviorscholars have reacted to the critiques of personality research from psychologists (Mischel, 1973, 2004) and organi- zational researchers (Davis-Blake & Pfeffer, 1989; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) by championing the stability over time of personality and related constructs (Gerhart, 2005; Staw, Bell, & Clausen, 1986). The time is ripe for aconsiderationoftheothersideofthecoin—theoryand evidence concerning personality change.

There are many different approaches to personal- ity. The list incorporates traits (Allport, 1937; Barrick

& Mount, 1991), biology (Dabbs, Hargrove, & Heusel, 1996), psychoanalysis (Baumeister, Dale, & Sommer, 1998), humanistic approaches (Maslow, 1954; Rogers, 1947, 2012), motivation (McClelland, 1965), social learning (Rotter, 1954), and cognitive ap- proaches (Kelly, 1955; Mischel, 1973), among others. We adopt a contemporary theorist’s definition that captures the whole spectrum of the person’s in- dividuality rather than just one slice of personality theory and research: “Personality refers to an in- dividual’s characteristic pattern of thought, emotion, and behavior, together with the psychological mechanisms—hidden or not—behind these pat- terns” (Funder, 1997: 1–2). Thus, personality change refers to change in the individual’s characteristic pattern of thought, emotion, or behavior as well as change to the mechanisms behind these patterns.

This review includes empirical, conceptual, meta- analytic, and review papers published between 2006 and 2017 from journals in management, sociology, psychology, and related fields. We searched for rel- evant articles using combinations of the follow- ing search terms: personality change/personality dynamics/psychological change. We concentrated our search on journals regarded as primary outlets in their field, and we also included specialist journals as appropriate. Because this is the first paper con- cerning personality change in relation to organiza- tional behavior, we also delved into prior research to provide context for contemporary developments. We have striven to bring a comprehensive perspec- tive to bear on what has been a much-neglected re- search arena. We necessarily draw heavily from personality psychology research given the paucity of work in organizational behavior that considers per- sonality change.

We structure the review in three major sections. First, we present a brief history of personality change theory and research. Second, we review the ante- cedents of personality change in terms of self- development, organizational events and processes, and external events and processes that impinge on organizational careers. Third, we articulate an over- arching framework that can guide future research.

Brief History

There has long been interest in the question of whether individuals are fixed or changeable in their dispositions. Theory and evidence can be adduced to favor one or the other perspective. As David McClelland was moved to comment on the stark di- vide in personality researchon the topic of personality

468 JuneAcademy of Management Annals

change: “A man from Mars might be led to believe that personality change appears to be very difficult for those who think it is very difficult, if not impossible, and much easier for those who think it can be done” (McClelland, 1965: 322). As with people in general (Dweck, 1999, 2008), personality theories differ as to whether they view personality change as integral to human beings (e.g., personal construct theory—Kelly, 1955) or whether they view personality as consisting of relatively stable entities (e.g., the Big Five trait ap- proach) (Pervin, 1994). On the side of the stability of personality, the theory of humors, according to which people’s temperaments are rooted in their physiology, dates back to ancient Greece, but has continued to fascinate researchers throughout history and con- tinues to play a role in contemporary research on personality stability (Rothbart, Ahadi, & Evans, 2000). On the side of personality change, there is an equally distinguished lineage, deriving from the theory of Heraclitus concerning how people, influenced by the riveroflife,areconstantlyinthefluxofchange(Sabelli & Carlson-Sabelli, 1989). And people have been depicted as mutating toward one of many selves depending on the character of the groups to which they address themselves (James, 1890; Roberts & Donahue, 1994).

In the modern era, scholarly interest in personality change is evident in theories that gained traction in the 1950s and 1960s. Unlike the work of early theo- rists, such as Freud and Jung, who emphasized the continuing influence of childhood on adult person- ality, the writings of Gordon Allport (1937, 1961), David McClelland (1965), and George Kelly (1955) emphasized personality change throughout adult- hood. This emphasis on personality change con- tributed to debates concerning the relative stability of adult personality (e.g., the person-situation debate initiated by Mischel, 1979), and contributed to the search for evidence of trait heritability (Jang, McCrae, Angleitner, Riemann, & Livesley, 1998). The focus of research moved away from prior emphases on per- sonality as changeable.

Leaving aside individual abilities such as IQ as unrelated to our current focus on dispositional rather than ability-based individual differences, and building on the definition of personality in- troduced previously (Funder, 1997), personality re- search in organizational behavior can be organized into three main types of approaches (Roberts & Wood, 2006). The first approach includes the traits that describe people’s patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (Funder, 1991); the second includes the motives and values that capture people’s desires

and needs (Hogan, 1982; McClelland, 1965; Murray, 1938); and the third refers to personal constructs, schemas, scripts, and stories that people develop to make sense of and anticipate experience (Kelly, 1955; McAdams, 1993).

Traits In looking at the development of trait ap- proaches, it is striking that Gordon Allport, who is often identified as the progenitor of a list of person- ality trait terms that helped form the basis of Big Five research (Allport & Odbert, 1936), noted that people changed in response to their social environments. Indeed, in both his early and later writings, he dis- missed the notion of a fixed personality trait: “The ever-changing nature of traits and their close de- pendence on the fluid conditions of the environment forbid a conception that is overrigid or oversimple” (Allport, 1937: 312). Allport embraced the notion of personality flexibility: “The pull of the situation is, however, so powerful that we are forced to regard personality as never a fixed entity or pattern” (Allport, 1961: 181). Although he claimed that strong situational pressures might change traits, Allport also suggested that people have an inherent drive toward psychological growth. He argued that this drive helps account for most personality develop- ment (Allport, 1961). Thus, for Allport, personality development could be said to occur naturally through a process of inner psychological growth and maturation (Zuroff, 1986). Despite the general em- phasis in contemporary personality theory on the fixity of traits, there is now considerable interest in trait change (Boyce et al., 2015; Roberts et al., 2008).

Motives, needs, and values. From the perspective of motives, needs, and values, a distinctive per- spective that recognizes the malleability of human personality specifically in relation to organizational behavior is the acquired needs theory (McClelland, 1965; see Winter, 2011, for a recent empirical test). McClelland emphasized ways in which people who set goals to strengthen one or more motives could realign their personality system through the practice of relevant behaviors including workplace activities. (This focus on behavior-induced personality change has received recent validation—see Magidson, Roberts, Collado-Rodriguez, & Lejuez, 2014.) Un- deterred by prevailing ideas concerning the stability of personality, McClelland derived inspiration from psychotherapists in developing short (one-to-three week) courses that enabled many people to change the achievement aspects of their personalities— aspects important for careers in sales and entrepre- neurship (McClelland, 1987; see Collins, Hanges, & Locke, 2004 for a meta-analysis).

2018 469Tasselli, Kilduff, and Landis

Perhaps the most influential current approach to personality from a needs perspective is the emphasis on two primary motivations: the need for status and the need for belonging. People strive for status, per- sonal achievement, and power but they also strive for social acceptance, inclusion, and the avoidance of rejection (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Hogan, 1996; Hogan & Holland, 2003; Mitchell, 1997). Status striving and communion striving represent energy resources (Hobfoll, 1989) that people devote to get- ting ahead of others and getting along with others (Halbesleben & Bowler, 2007). Status and commu- nion are fundamental motivational orientations (Wiggins, 1991) of particular relevance for organi- zational behavior (Stewart & Barrick, 2004).

Personal constructs, schemas, scripts, and stories. Personality approaches that focus on traits or needs tend to compare across individuals. But such nor- mative approaches often miss the distinctive idio- syncrasies of individuals. Capturing individual distinctiveness requires more idiographic ap- proaches such as those offered by researchers who collect people’s life narratives (Block & Airasian, 1971; McAdams, 1993) or personal projects (Little, 1983). We focus here on George Kelly’s (1955) per- sonal construct approach that is explicit in its en- dorsement of personality change at the individual level, but that also offers a generalizable theory and method for comparing across individual construals. Kelly (1955) offered organizational behavior re- searchers (de Vries, Walter, Van der Vegt, & Essens, 2014; see Cornelius, 2015, for a review) a personality psychology that emphasizes the principle of con- structive alternativism as a way to understand and potentially change the idiosyncratic cognitive sys- tems people use to manage problems. According to personal construct theory, each person evolves through experience in the world a set of schematic templates for anticipating their own and others’ be- haviors. These personal construct systems help frame and simplify events and allow predictions about what is likely to happen (Borman, 1987). The principle of constructive alternativism states that the individual’s current set of interpretations (that form the basis of the individual’s personality) are always subject to revision or replacement: “No one needs to paint himself into a corner; no one needs to be completely hemmed in by circumstances; no one needs to be the victim of his biography” (Kelly, 1955: vol. 2, 15). People can improve their ways of dealing with the world by learning from their mistakes and thereby revising the basic constructs through which they view the world and their experiences of it.

Personality, from this perspective, does not rep- resent some fundamental essence of the individual but rather a system of construing by which the indi- vidual relates to others—a system that functions much like a set of hypotheses derived from the in- dividual’s theory of the self. Of course, given the importance of this construing system to the indi- vidual, attempts at personality change are likely to face resistance. But, Kelly emphasized that person- ality is alterable, in the same way that a flawed sci- entific theory is alterable in the face of failed hypotheses. The distinctive approach to individuals’ personality change embodied in personal construct theory continues to influence both psychological research (see Walker & Winter, 2007, for a review), research across the social sciences more generally (see the recent handbook edited by Winter & Reed, 2015), and decision-making research in organiza- tions (Eden & Ackermann, 2010).

Kelly’s approach to personality change focused on individualized role therapy during which clients enacted hypothetical characters to derive evidence for how they could engage in new ways of behaving and thinking. Thus, people were considered active agents in the construction of their own sense-making personas rather than reactive victims of inherited traits or environmental demands (see Neimeyer, 1993, for a review). Building on the argument of personal construct theory that a person’s processes are psychologically channeled by the ways in which he or she anticipates events (Kelly, 1963), recent studies show that people can constructively change their personality through intensive coaching, self- expression, and experiential knowledge (Weiss, Bates, & Luciano, 2008). And constructive per- sonality change has been widely used in leader- ship training in industry and in coaching programs during organizational change (Reger, Gustafson, Demarie, & Mullane, 1994). Personal- ity theory, building on Kelly’s (1955) emphasis on the importance of understanding cognitive- affective encodings, expectancies, and beliefs, emphasizes the distinctive nature of individual personality signatures in the context of situational variability (Mischel & Shoda, 1995).

Thus, several theorists in the post-war era depic- ted people as active agents who were able to adapt their personalities in response to challenges and opportunities. This research was based on a de- velopmental view of personality that emphasized ways in which people could change. But personality research as a whole tended to rely on assump- tions concerning the stability of fixed traits. In

470 JuneAcademy of Management Annals

consequence, one of George Kelly’s students, Walter Mischel (1968), fired the first salvo in what came to be known as the person-situation debate when he critiqued the fixed trait approach to personality as inconsistent with evidence that people’s behaviors tended to be determined by the pressures of different situations. The reaction in personality psychology was to redouble efforts to find personality stability (Bem & Allen, 1974; Epstein & O’Brien, 1985). Thus, one resolution to the person-situation debate is to acknowledge that a person’s momentary behaviors vary widely because of situational pressures, but that a person’s average scores on personality traits over longer stretches of time are “very stable” (Fleeson, 2004: 86). In organizational behavior, much effort was devoted to providing evidence of stability in people’s dispositions over their working lives (Bell & Staw, 1989; Staw et al., 1986; Staw & Ross, 1985). The situational side of the argument was quick to assert the importance of job design and other situational contributors to variability (Gerhart, 1987), and to attack the resurgence of personality research as flawed given that organizations represented strong situations in which dispositional effects could be dismissed as “just a mirage” (Davis-Blake & Pfeffer, 1989).

In recent decades, the field of organizational be- havior has moved on from this person-situation debate. While acknowledging the relevance of sit- uational pressures, researchers have demonstrated the importance of relatively fixed traits in predicting a range of outcomes of interest to organizational be- havior that include performance motivation (see Judge & Ilies, 2002, for a meta-analysis) and leader- ship (see Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002a, for a meta-analysis). The situation in which the indi- vidual is embedded and the personality resources that the individual brings to bear on the situation are both now recognized as contributing to outcomes (Tasselli & Kilduff, in press). For example, recent research showed that the Big Five personality traits were stronger predictors of job performance for jobs that were weakly constrained by situational pres- sures (e.g., jobs that were unstructured, and jobs in which employees had discretion to make decisions) relative to jobs that were strongly constrained (Judge & Zapata, 2015). Moving on from the person-situation debate, our aim is to consider the evidence and im- plications for an organizational view of personality that incorporates the neglected developmental and change perspectives. Figure 1 (adapted from the neo- socioanalytic model of Roberts & Nickel, 2017) repre- sents a summary of antecedents to change, a typology

of personality approaches, and likely outcomes of per- sonality change.

ANTECEDENTS OF PERSONALITY CHANGE

Personality can change because of self-driven or external processes. We review research of relevance for organizational behavior concerning the anteced- ents of personality change. Specifically, we introduce and discuss recent research on self-development, or- ganizationaleventsandprocesses,andexternalevents and processes.

Self-Development

The desire to change personality is widespread, with more than 87 percent of people reporting that they want to change core aspects of the self that in- clude extraversion and conscientiousness (Hudson & Fraley, 2016). People in organizations tend to be- lieve that they can change almost any work-relevant characteristic through effort (Maurer & Lippstreu, 2008). And young adults self-report changes in industriousness, impulse control, and reliability even though outside observers fail to notice these changes (Jackson etal., 2009). In changing personality, self-affirmation interventions, therapy, and self- actualization efforts enable individuals to develop moreexpansiveviewsoftheself,itsrelationshipswith the environment, and its resources (Cohen & Garcia, 2008; Garcia & Cohen, 2013; Hudson & Fraley, 2015; Wilson, 2011; Yeager & Walton, 2011).

Self-affirmation. In contrast to the traditional pessimism concerning person-driven change (Costa & McCrae, 1988), recent studies show that self- affirmation activities, including writing about core personal values, can help shape individuals’ per- sonalities, both encouraging individuals to appraise life and work threats in a positive, nondefensive way and shaping people’s psychological self-appraisals (Dweck, 2008; McQueen & Klein, 2006). Through self-affirmation interventions, individuals reinforce their psychological self-integrity by manifesting and reaffirming values of importance for them (Garcia & Cohen, 2013; Wilson, 2011; Yeager & Walton, 2011). Changing personality, in these instances, relates to the ways in which people construe themselves and the psychological resources they have available to deal with challenges to their identities. Practices such as writing about core values can permanently change how people filter information about them- selves and their environments (see Cohen & Sherman, 2014, for a review).

2018 471Tasselli, Kilduff, and Landis

Individuals can achieve change as they become self-affirmed and as others in the work environment affirm their new selves through positive feedback. Self-help, support groups, personal growth, and self- affirmation facilitate positive change in individual personality (Walker & Winter, 2007). For people suffering from personality disorders related to de- pression and anxiety (emotions often experienced in the workplace—e.g., Kouchaki & Desai, 2015; Priesemuth & Taylor, 2016), guided self-help is ef- fective in fostering positive change (see Cuijpers, Donker, van Straten, Li, & Andersson, 2010, for a meta-analysis). And as people move into new roles in organizations, they experiment with provisional selves that serve as trials for possible but not yet fully elaborated professional identities (Ibarra, 1999) that can incorporate personality traits activated by the new work contexts (Judge & Zapata, 2015).

In reviewing self-affirmation interventions and related approaches, it is worth noting that the prior advocates of personality change possibility were psychologists pursuing (non-Freudian) therapeutic approaches, particularly those associated with hu- manistic psychology, such as personal construct theory (Kelly, 1955), discussed previously. A related modern-day approach is behavior activation ther- apy, in which individuals rate daily work activities on levels of importance and enjoyment, and then prepare a structured plan for engaging in activities consistent with their self-assessed important values (Farmer & Chapman, 2016). Through increased en- gagement in activities that are considered important,

enjoyable, and in accordance with individual values across numerous work- and life-related domains, people can register increases in traits, such as con- scientiousness, that relate to valued work outcomes (Magidson et al., 2014).

State or trait change? As extensive evidence has accumulated over the last decades on the possibility of personality change following individuals’ self- development interventions (Rogers, 2007), two opposing perspectives have emerged concerning whether such personality changes capture state or trait variance. The first position argues that changes in personality observed during therapy are attribut- able to (relatively transient) state-level variance rather than (relatively enduring) trait-level variance (Du, Bakish, Ravindran, & Hrdina, 2002). From this perspective, trait measures are imperfect constructs that capture both trait and state change. The second position claims that the changes observed during interventions may capture variation in the trait itself, and not in the state component of the personality construct (Soskin, Carl, Alpert, & Fava, 2012). Ac- cording to this second perspective, interventions enable enduring improvement to individuals’ psy- chological disorders, and have real consequences for people’s personal and work-related outcomes.

A recent meta-analysis (Roberts, Luo, Briley, Chow, Su, & Hill, 2017) showed that personality changes following interventions involved trait (rather than state) variation. There was no evidence that the effects of interventions faded over time. Rather, the effects of interventions appeared to

FIGURE 1 A Model of Antecedents and Outcomes of Personality Change

Antecedents of Change Personality Change Outcomes

Traits (e.g., Big Five traits, Goldberg, 1993)

Needs (e.g., need for status, need for belonging, Hogan, 1982; see Hennecke & Freund, 2017, for a review)

Personal Constructs (e.g., Kelly, 1955), and Stories (e.g., McLean, 2017), etc.

Identity Change (i.e., change in how the individual perceives the self in terms of vocational preferences, career outcomes, job engagement, etc.)

Reputation Change (i.e., change in how the individual is evaluated by others in terms of job performance, citizenship behaviors, leadership potential, etc.)

Self-Development (e.g., personal striving, therapeutic engagement)

Organizational Events and Processes (e.g., employment change)

External Events and Processes (e.g., domestic jolts)

472 JuneAcademy of Management Annals

permanently affect people’s personalities. The larg- est effect of such interventions on personality was observed for emotional stability and extraversion, whereas other traits, including openness to experi- ence, did not evidence significant variation over time. Of note is that all forms of interventions (behav- ioral therapy, cognitive therapy, and psychodynamic interventions), with the exception of hospitalization, reported the same effects on personality change. These results concerning improvements in person- ality development are important given that, for ex- ample, people who exhibit stability or decreases in neuroticism over a period of 12 years have higher survival rates than people who exhibit increases in neuroticism over the same time interval (Mroczek & Spiro, 2007).

Change efforts can be facilitated by relatively short-term interventions (Magidson et al., 2014; Smith, Glass, & Miller, 1980) in contrast to the life- long therapy advocated by Freudians and Jungians. For example, a 20-week cognitive–behavioral ther- apy intervention helped increase extraversion and decrease neuroticism (Clark et al., 2003). Therapies lasting four or more weeks achieved half the amount of change in personality traits that people usually display in their life course from young adulthood through middle age (half a standard deviation) (Roberts et al., 2017). Thus, a therapeutic endeavor to develop the work skills of those suffering drug de- pendencies involved clients in a six-week, five-days- a-week, six-hours-a-day program of vocational skill training and therapeutic engagement. The program succeeded in effecting positive change in personality traits of neuroticism, agreeableness, and consci- entiousness. These changes were independent of symptom experience, demonstrating that shifts in adaptive orientation were not merely reflections of symptomatic relief: Changes in personality scores were not acting simply as markers of shifts in state- level functioning. Instead, there was evidence of significant change in underlying traits (Piedmont, 2001).

The evidence suggests that people can change their personalities through processes that include personal striving, therapeutic engagement, active coaching, and reflective engagement with experi- ences at work. The positive message concerning personality change challenges the emphasis from much organizational psychology on the stability of individuals’ dispositions over large chunks of their working life (Staw et al., 1986). People, of course, differ in the extent to which they have the motivation and ability to change their personalities, but these

differences in the likelihood of personality change have been neglected in personality research (Mroczek, Almeida, Spiro, & Pafford, 2006).

Self-actualization. These emphases on guided self-improvement and therapy toward a better, if not optimal, personality system have been taken up by researchers associated with the positive psychology movement, with a focus on how people can effect change toward sustainable happiness and well-being (Snyder & Lopez, 2009). The emphasis in positive psychology is on the individual’s self-actualization toward optimal well-being as exhibited in positive subjective experiences, positive personality traits, and the enactment of civic virtues (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).

In advocating the possibility of change toward better functioning, the positive psychology perspective challenges the prevailing emphasis (McCrae & Costa, 1994)ontherelativestabilityoftheBigFivepersonality factors. It also challenges the influential hedonic treadmill idea (Brickman & Campbell, 1971) that the individual is likely to experience mild-to-moderate happiness fluctuations around a set point that stays relatively fixed. The positive psychology emphasis on optimizing human happiness through personality change is related to prior therapeutic theories and research in the domain of humanistic and construc- tivist psychology (Maslow, 1968) that similarly em- phasized individuals’ potential for radical change (Mahoney, 2002; Robbins, 2008). Positive psy- chology suggests people can effect permanent personality change through a set of behaviors that include: regular exercise, regular kindness to others, striving for important personal goals, ef- fort toward meaningful causes, positive reframing of situations, reflections on one’s own blessings, and the practice of classical virtues such as grat- itude, hope, and forgiveness (Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade, 2005b). In moving people toward greater happiness and well-being, these behaviors also decrease neuroticism and increase extraversion.

The theoretical framing of this positive psychol- ogy approach to personality change emphasizes a bottom-up process: Moment-to-moment fluctua- tions in personality can be targeted so that un- derlying traits themselves are gradually changed (Roberts et al., 2006). Healthy patterns of behavior are practiced until they become habitual. The re- peated enactments of these positive behaviors then manifest themselves in trait-level change (Chapman, Hampson, & Clarkin, 2014). This bottom-up process of personality change is particularly evident in the

2018 473Tasselli, Kilduff, and Landis

workplace, given the prevalence of work experi- ences in shaping how individuals think, feel, and behave (Wu, 2016). Indeed, research evidence is ac- cumulating concerning how individuals can in- crease their positive affectivity and reduce negative traits (Jayawickreme & Blackie, 2014). This evidence suggests that the repeated experience of frequent positive affect generates success across many dif- ferent areas of individuals’ lives (Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005a). People who change their person- alities in ways that align with their goals experience increases in well-being over time (Hudson & Fraley, 2016).

Thus, a major contribution of the positive psy- chology movement has been to counterbalance the emphasis on fixity of personality. According to positive psychology, the personality trait of positive affectivity is not highly constrained by either objec- tive life conditions or genetic and biological factors. People are relatively free to increase their positive affectivity and to move closer toward their potential maximum (Watson, 2002).

The focus of positive psychology tends to be on doing rather than thinking or talking as a way to enact personality change (Watson, 2002). This emphasis on acting positively to achieve improvement has been criticized for offering simplistic answers to age- old questions concerning how to achieve happiness (Gable & Haidt, 2005; Miller, 2008). But the positive psychology tent incorporates both action-oriented and cognitive-oriented research-based interven- tions. The cognitively oriented positive psychology researchers tend to be restrained in their claims con- cerning the magnitude of likely personality change. Can pessimists become optimists through change to the traits of neuroticism and extraversion? The an- swer, according to cognitive researchers, comes down to whether cognitive–behavioral therapies and effi- cacy training in problem-solving can effect permanent changes that result in behavior identical to that oc- curring among those natural optimists who are fortu- nate not to have to strive for such fundamental change (Carver & Scheier, 2002).

Inspired by positive psychology ideas, the positive organizational behavior movement has emerged in the organizational research landscape and empha- sizes the ways in which people within organizations can increase a range of outcomes, including confi- dence, self-efficacy, hope, optimism, subjective well-being, happiness, emotional intelligence, and resilience (Luthans, 2002; Youssef & Luthans, 2007). New research in this domain investigates the ways people can flourish in the workplace via the positive

work relationships they experience with colleagues and managers (Colbert, Bono, & Purvanova, 2016).

Organizational Events and Processes

AssuggestedinFigure1,personalitychangecanalso be triggered by organizational events and processes, including employment, organizational pressures, and interpersonal relationships with coworkers.

Employment and career development. Working is crucial to the identity and well-being of many people. Indeed, a two-year study of young people (aged 17–24 at the start of the study) showed that youth unemployment was associated with an in- creased risk of negative outcomes including person- ality dysfunction (Thern, de Munter, Hemmingsson, & Rasmussen, in press). After starting their first job, in- dividuals tend to increase strongly in conscientious- ness (Specht, Egloff, & Schmukle, 2011) whereas people who become unemployed tend to experience decreases in agreeableness, conscientiousness, open- ness to experience (Boyce et al., 2015), and internal locus of control (Niess, 2014). Overall, unemployment is associated with a significant drop in life satisfaction (Lucas, Clark, Georgellis, & Diener, 2004). Similarly, people who retire decrease strongly in conscientious- ness (Specht et al., 2011).

By contrast, people who increase their participa- tion in the paid labor force and those who become more successful between the ages of 27 and 43 tend to become more assertive in their personalities (Roberts, 1997). There is, apparently, a surprising plasticity in individuals’ personalities beyond the age of supposedly fixed dispositions. Work envi- ronments significantly influence patterns of per- sonality change through processes that include occupational socialization (Stoll & Trautwein, 2017; Wille & De Fruyt, 2014). Other research has shown that work experiences for young adults (aged be- tween 18 and 26) are predictive of changes in basic personality traits, although the evidence suggests codevelopment of personality and work experience rather than a simple causal effect (Roberts, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2003). The results show the beneficial effects for young adults of gaining high-status jobs in terms of changing their personality toward lower scores on negative dimensions such as aggression, alienation, and stress, and toward higher scores on positive di- mensions such as social closeness and well-being.

Considering the increasing emphasis in the modern business environment on the internationalization of work activities, it is notable that the personal jolt of experiencing even a temporary international work

474 JuneAcademy of Management Annals

assignment affects personality. Early research on lan- guageandpersonalityshowedthattheindividualfeels and behaves “like a different person” when speaking a second language (Guiora & Acton, 1979). Both short-term and long-term international mobility change individuals’ personalities (beyond self- selection explanations) toward greater openness to experience, agreeableness, and emotional stability (Zimmermann & Neyer, 2013).

Organizational pressures. The constraints and stress that people experience within organizations can change personality, both for the better and the worse. For example, the severe psychological trauma that results from internment in a concentration camp induced depressive personality structures irrespective of pre-traumatic event life experiences (Fink, 2003). More generally, individuals facing temporary denial of individual freedom (such as imprisonment) are likely to develop antisocial personality problems (Lamb & Weinberger, 1998). Organizations (such as asylums, prisons, and the military) that impose total control on individual expression and freedom can strip away the sense of self, resulting in changes to personality traits and functions (Goffman, 1961). And people who experience wrongful criminal convic- tions tend to exhibit “enduring personality change” including anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (Grounds, 2004).

Classic psychological research emphasized the positive effects of military training, suggesting that enrollment in the army matures young individuals and contributes to an improvement in socialization skills (James, 1910; 1988). But more recent research challenged this positive view in investigating the complex patterns of personality change associated with a total organizational experience such as the military service. A study using a large longitudinal sample of German males showed that, in a two-year period, military recruits manifested a drop in their mean levels of agreeableness that persisted for five years even as they reentered civilian life. Thus, ex- treme organizational pressures can entail long-lasting influences on personality (Jackson, Thoemmes, Jonkmann, Lüdtke, & Trautwein, 2012; but see Schult & Sparfeldt, 2015, for a contrasting perspective).

It is worthy of note that organizational roles that appear attractive and well-remunerated can leave a hidden legacy of psychological damage including personality deterioration. Players in the National Football League who experience concussions on the field of play are liable to a lifetime of depression (Didehbani, Cullum, Mansinghani, Conover, & Hart, 2013). These routine head injuries do more than

cause physical trauma—the effects on individuals’ personalityarealsodetrimental:reducedself-reliance and increased irritability are evident to relatives within three months (Brooks & McKinlay, 1983).

Organizational contexts can also change person- ality for the better. For example, as people move into more complex jobs, they tend to become more flex- ible, whereas moves into more autonomous jobs lead people to be more self-evaluative (Kohn & Schooler, 1978) and more competent (Mortimer & Lorence, 1979). Employees whose jobs require a variety of skills tend to experience higher well-being (Roberts et al., 2003), greater emotional stability (Brousseau & Prince, 1981), and increased social dominance (Brousseau & Prince, 1981). More generally, work autonomy tends to increase young adults’ psycho- logical well-being and positive emotionality (Roberts et al., 2003). Interestingly, work autonomy is also associated with an increase in young adults’ psycho- logical alienation(Robertsetal.,2003),suggestingthat the rise in personal independence in modern work environments might hamper the quality of in- terpersonal interactions with coworkers. By contrast, stimulating work is associated with individuals ex- periencing higher well-being and higher psychologi- cal achievement (Roberts et al., 2003). A three-year longitudinal analysis showed that individuals stim- ulated by both higher job demands and job control were more likely to increase their proactive person- ality compared with people with less task control at work (Li et al., 2014).

Thus, people look to organizational contexts for possibilities for personality renewal and affirmation (Roberts, Dutton, Spreitzer, Heaphy, & Quinn, 2005). But people who select themselves into stressful work roles may experience unwelcome increases in neu- roticism and decreases in extraversion (Wu, 2016). The inference is that high-status jobs and occupa- tions are effective in promoting beneficial personal- ity change, whereas stressful work roles can lead to unwanted personality change that depletes well- being. In general, if people in the workplace strive for daily shifts in thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, then they can expect these persistent state-level changes to eventually coalesce into changes in basic person- ality traits (Hudson & Fraley, 2016).

Relationships with coworkers. The interpersonal context of work also contributes to personality change. Thus, the extent to which individuals ex- perience relationships with coworkers as satisfac- tory relates to increased extraversion and decreased neuroticism (Scollon & Diener, 2006). Students who perceive a better personal fit with the college

2018 475Tasselli, Kilduff, and Landis

environment and with their classmates are more likely to become open to experience and to gain higher academic achievements (Harms, Roberts, & Winter, 2006). Individuals who increase their social investment in work activities with coworkers tend to become more conscientious and more agreeable, whereas people who de-invest in the social aspects of their work activities decrease in conscientiousness over time. Furthermore, people who increase their counterproductive behaviors toward colleagues (for example, making fun of people at work) also become less extraverted and less emotionally stable (Hudson & Roberts, 2016).

Well-known research suggests that distinctive col- legial contexts of organizations result from processes of attraction, selection, and retention of individuals who are similar in their personalities (Schneider et al., 1998). But evidence also suggests that contexts can grow more similar over time as people’s personalities converge through contact with other people. In the workplace, common negative behaviors such as rudeness can spread as easily as the common cold with significant consequences for coworkers, includ- ingnegativeaffect(Foulk,Woolum,&Erez,2016).And leader charisma can result via emotional contagion in followers imitating leaders’ nonverbal behaviors, thereby, enhancing the expression of followers’ own charisma(Cherulnik, Donley,Wiewel,&Miller,2001). Beyond this, longitudinal research in the sociology of medicine shows widespread evidence of contagion among friends and friends of friends of loneliness, happiness, and depression that are related to the per- sonality traits of neuroticism, positive affect, and negative affect (Cacioppo, Fowler, & Christakis, 2009; Fowler & Christakis, 2008; Rosenquist, Fowler, & Christakis, 2011). Personality change may be speeded by the daily workplace encounters with others different from one’s self.

External Events and Processes

Personality can change through individual desire, training, and agency, and through events and pro- cesses within work organizations. But work-related personality can also be shaped over time by the process of aging and by individuals’ experience of events that affect job experiences and careers. The Big Five, for example, can change following changes in interpersonal relationships (e.g., marriage), the death of a close person in the family (e.g., death of a parent), and changes in the composition of a family (e.g., birth of a child) (Roberts et al., 2006; Specht et al., 2011). Disruptive personal experiences such as

alcohol abuse (Hicks, Durbin, Blonigen, Iacono, & McGue, 2012; Littlefield, Sher, & Wood, 2009) and personal trauma (Jayawickreme & Blackie, 2014) contribute to changes in personality and have spill- over effects in the workplace. Immigration, war, and other traumatic events can change personality too (Stewart & Deaux, 2012). The appearance of rela- tively unchanging personality may depend on the consistency of situations to which the individual is exposed (Mischel, 1973; Roberts & Wood, 2006). In this review, we focus on the effects on personality change of domestic jolts, education, and the aging process.

Domestic jolts. People experience changes in their lives due to domestic influences that may be in- visible to work colleagues but that affect their per- sonalities inside the workplace. Thus, a study over four years of nearly 15,000 people (mean age at start of study 5 47) showed that women who moved out of theirparents’home(relativetowomen whoremained) became more emotionally stable (although there was no effect for men—Specht et al., 2011). A six-year study of more than 4,000 young adults (mean age at start of the research 5 19.6) showed that living with a partner (rather than by oneself or with one’s parents) was associated with development in self-esteem (Wagner, Lüdtke, Jonkmann, & Trautwein, 2013). An eight-year study of more than 300 young adults (mean age at start of study 5 24) showed that the transition to living with a partner also led to decreases in neuroti- cism and increases in extraversion (Neyer & Lehnart, 2007). And individuals who continued to cohabit with a partner tended to exhibit decreases in neu- roticism and increases in agreeableness compared with those who ended these relationships (Lehnart & Neyer, 2006). Self-ratings show that in the two years after getting married people become more agreeable, more conscientious, and less neurotic (Watson & Humrichouse, 2006).

Childbearing is also associated with personality dynamics. A nine-year study of more than 1,500 people of childbearing age showed that the birth of a child tended to increase parents’ emotionality, particularly for people with high baseline emotion- ality who already had two or more children. For men, having a child enhanced sociability, but only for men with high baseline sociability to begin with; for those with low baseline sociability, the arrival of a child decreased sociability (Jokela, Kivimäki, Elovainio, & Keltikangas-Järvinen, 2009).

Overall, therefore, these domestic changes in people’s lives can change personality traits such as conscientiousnessandextraversionthathavesignificant

476 JuneAcademy of Management Annals

implications for people’s success in organizational careers.

Education. The importance of educational paths and other formative activities has attracted the longstanding attention of organizational researchers (Judge, Cable, Boudreau, & Bretz, 1995). But only recently has research investigated whether education affects personality-related skills, competences, and goals (Bandura, 1999). Students who attend class and spend more time on their homework than their peers tend to increase more in conscientiousness; similarly, students who experience fewer stressful experiences during their educational years are more likely to de- crease in neuroticism (Jackson, 2011).

Some of the changes associated with education represent unanticipated consequences of personal choices. Specifically, college students who choose vocational specializations at university and young professionals who choose vocational training at work, are more likely to exhibit increases in consci- entiousness and agreeableness than their less voca- tionally minded peers over a four-year interval (Lüdtke, Roberts, Trautwein, & Nagy, 2011). The important question remains as to whether personal- ity change results from inherent latent traits that lead students to choose a particular educational trajectory or whether the educational training itself, through knowledge and social skill acquisition, shapes personality.

Aging. From the very beginnings of psychology, leading voices proclaimed personality changes over the life course to be unlikely if not impossible. According to some influential researchers, the in- dividual’s personality is largely stable by the age of 30 (James, 1890). Others have claimed that person- ality is fixed much earlier—by adolescence (Bloom, 1964), or even by the age of two or three because of child-rearing practices (Sapir, 1934), or fully de- veloped in terms of the ego, the id, and the superego by the age of five (Freud, 1923). In keeping with this traditional unwillingness to acknowledge the possi- bility of personality change over the life course, more recent theorists and empiricists have reiterated the mantra that the individual’s personality is stable over time. Personality stability, we have been told, derives from the potency of inherited predisposi- tions (Johnson, McGue, & Krueger, 2005; Lykken & Tellegen, 1996) or because of the influences of both genetics and environmental shaping (Cloninger, 1986). A weaker version of the stability argument is that personality change can happen later in life, but the probability of change decreases with age (Glenn, 1980).

Recent results challenge this stability perspective, showing that people experience substantial change in personality as a result of aging: Individuals tend to become more conscientious, more extraverted, and less neurotic over time (Roberts et al., 2006). Most personality change occurs between the ages of 20 and 40 (an important period in many adults’ working lives), but people keep changing into middle and old age (Edmonds, Jackson, Fayard, & Roberts, 2008; Roberts & Mroczek, 2008). Older people, in particu- lar, tend to exhibit increases in agreeableness and decreases in openness to experience and social vi- tality compared with the young and middle aged (Roberts et al., 2006). Moreover, conscientiousness and agreeableness continue to increase throughout early and middle adulthood at varying rates, whereas neuroticism tends to decline among women but not among men (Srivastava, John, Gosling, & Potter, 2003). The cumulative amount of change of such trait domains across the life course exceeds one full standard deviation (Roberts & Mroczek, 2008).

Cohort studies examine longitudinal change in personality by following the same group of in- dividuals over time. A recent study of a Scottish co- hort over a 63-year time interval (first assessment of personality at age 14 and second assessment at age 77) showed that the lifelong stability of personality was quite low, but that some aspects of personality in older age did relate to personality in childhood (Harris, Brett, Johnson, & Deary, 2016). A study fol- lowing a cohort of Hawaiians over a 40-year time interval found no to little evidence for stability in neuroticism and agreeableness, and modest-to- moderate evidence for stability in openness to experience, conscientiousness, and extraversion (Hampson & Goldberg, 2006). Similarly, a longitudi- nal study tracking Harvard graduates over a 45-year time interval found modest correlations between the two time intervals for neuroticism and extraversion, and a moderate correlation for openness to experi- ence (Soldz & Vaillant, 1999).

Accidents, addictions, and other traumatic life events can accelerate the negative effects of aging on personality in ways that alter career possibilities. Despite the strong norms that separate home life and work life, recent research has argued that “organi- zations need to understand, acknowledge, and ad- dress the emotional upheaval, stress, and fear that their employees may experience as a consequence of events and crises outside the workplace” (Ragins, Lyness, Williams, & Winkel, 2014: 765). For exam- ple, significant proportions of working adults engage in excessive alcohol consumption (Cahalan, Cisin,

2018 477Tasselli, Kilduff, and Landis

& Crossley, 1969) and are employed until the middle or late stages of their disorder (Trice, 1962). This is a workplace problem to the extent that it affects performance and relationships in the workplace. Because of the spillover effects of addiction, there is widespread provision of employer-funded in- tervention programs (Webb, Shakeshaft, Sanson- Fisher, & Havard, 2009). Alcohol addiction affects not just the physical health of employees, it also damages work-related personality traits leading to increases in neuroticism, impulsivity (Littlefield et al., 2009), and other personality dysfunctions (Hicks et al., 2012).

Physical activity (on or off the job) helps prevent such maladaptive psychological changes in adult- hood and old age. More physically active individuals exhibit less decrease in extraversion, conscientious- ness, agreeableness, and emotional stability as they age. Moreover, these individuals are also more likely to maintain psychological consistency over time (Stephan, Sutin, & Terracciano, 2014, 2015).

Several trends emerge from these studies of age- related personality change and stability. Of note is the tendency for people to retain personality changes that occurred because of aging instead of returning to their earlier selves. There appears to be no biological set point where people change but then revert to earlier trait levels (Roberts & Mroczek, 2008). Sec- ond, psychological functioning is not fixed at a cer- tain age: Individuals retain the possibility of personality change throughout the life course, in- cluding middle and old age, challenging the as- sumption that personality is set “like plaster” by the age of 30 (James, 1890). Moreover, when people’s personalities change because of aging (in the absence of problems related to trauma and addiction), these changes tend to be for the better. Compared with when they were young, individuals in their middle or old age tend to become more emotionally stable, agreeable, and self-confident, showing an overall increase in social maturity (Roberts & Mroczek, 2008).

OUTCOMES OF PERSONALITY CHANGE

The current research literature suggests that per- sonalities can and do change through processes and events that include self-development efforts (Hudson & Fraley, 2017), experiences within orga- nizations, and processes outside of the workplace (as summarized in the left part of Figure 1). As people’s personalities change, there are likely to be changes in organizationally relevant outcomes, including how

they construct themselves in terms of career choices, job roles, competencies, and other outcomes that we consider under the broad rubric of work-related identity. Personality change is also likely to shift how people are evaluated by others in their organizations in terms of their performance at work, their citizen- ship contributions, and their potential as leaders— outcomes that we consider under the broad rubric of work-related reputation. We highlight the possibili- ties of identity and reputation change (as summa- rized in the right part of Figure 1) but, because of the paucity of studies within organizational behavior, the aim of this brief and somewhat speculative section is to promote further research on how per- sonality change affects identity and reputational outcomes.

Identity Change

Personality change can have profound effects on workplace identity, which represents the way in which people define themselves in the context of organizational life (Pratt, Rockmann, & Kaufmann, 2006). As personality changes, people are likely to change how they filter information about themselves and their environments (Cohen & Sherman, 2014), thus, leading them to see themselves differently. For example, people are likely to update their interaction strategies so that they seek out and interact with those who validate and reinforce their new, most current self-perceptions (Ibarra, 1999), given that people prefer to interact with those who see them as they see themselves (Swann & Read, 1981).

Personality change at work is, therefore, likely to affect identity through the social network roles that people enact in organizations; but personality change also relates to formal work roles. As people become more or less extraverted, conscientious, and agreeable, these changes are likely to facilitate tran- sitions into new work roles with consequences for changes to work identities (Hall, 1995). People who become absorbed in new work roles undergo identity change (West, Nicholson, & Arnold, 1987).

Influential research also suggests that personality change affects individuals’ identities in terms of their career preferences (Roberts et al., 2003). For example, changes in extraversion are related to the extent to which people experience changes in “pre- senter” career roles at work—these require indi- viduals to shape ideas, images, or products in ways that make them more attractive and convincing (Wille, Beyers, & De Fruyt, 2012). Increases in emo- tional stability result in individuals seeking out more

478 JuneAcademy of Management Annals

secure and predictable work environments, just as increases in openness to experience result in in- dividuals avoiding inflexible, conforming work en- vironments (Wille & De Fruyt, 2014).

Overall, therefore, people who experience per- sonality change are likely to have different experi- ences with which to construct their identities at work (Dickie, 2003). Work becomes meaningful to the in- dividual when the individual’s preferred self finds expression in work roles and in organizational membership (Kahn, 1990). Professionals and others who experience mismatch between their current identities and their work roles are likely to engage in identity customization processes, including deep- ening their work identities, creating new composite identities, and reverting to prior identities as tem- porary exigencies to manage role pressures (Pratt et al., 2006).

Reputation Change

As personality change affects identity change, and as people consequently enact different behaviors over time, people’s reputations in the eyes of others are also likely to change. By reputation we refer to how others regard individuals on the basis of their past activities (including performance) at work (Ertug & Castellucci, 2013). Personality change is likely to affect important reputation outcomes such as the ability to adapt to changing work circum- stances (Huang, Ryan, Zabel, & Palmer, 2014). The Big Five personality traits are well-known predictors of work performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991), so individuals who exhibit change on these indicators are likely to exhibit change in how their contribu- tions are perceived in the workplace. And, to the extent that individuals become more or less extra- verted, agreeable, open, conscientious, and emo- tionally stable, they are likely to be seen differently by others as their interactions in the workplace un- dergo transformation (Ibarra, 1999).

Personality affects who seeks advice from whom, who becomes friends with whom, and even the people one names as a work partner (Fang, Landis, Zhang, Anderson, Shaw, & Kilduff, 2015; Tasselli, Kilduff, & Menges, 2015). Thus, changes to in- dividuals’ personalities are likely to change in- dividuals’ patterns of social connections. To the extent that people are known by the company they keep (Kilduff, Crossland, Tsai, & Bowers, 2016), changes to interaction patterns mean changes to reputation in terms of how people are perceived by others. Network connections are prisms through

which other people attempt to discern the indivi- dual’s inner qualities, including performance poten- tial (Podolny, 2001) and potential for conflicts in their relationships (Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995).

The effects of personality change on reputation out- comes may generalize to whole cohorts of people en- tering employment at the same time and moving through socialization experiences. (For a review of co- hort differences in personality, see Hülür, 2017). Per- sonality effects are shaped by the time periods in which people live. Thus, in China, shyness went from being a desirable trait in traditional Chinese society to being an undesirable trait in the market economy era, with changing reputational consequences: Whereas in the earlier period shyness predicted leadership and achievement, in the market era, shyness predicted peer disregardandloneliness(Liu,Chen,Li,&French,2012).

Personality differences affect many reputational outcomes such as job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hogan & Holland, 2003), leadership (Bono & Judge, 2004; Judge et al., 2002a), satisfaction (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002b), citizenship behaviors (Borman, Penner, Allen, & Motowidlo, 2001; Organ & Ryan, 1995), and counterproductive work behaviors (Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007). The big gap in our understanding concerns how personality change affects these reputational outcomes. The right-hand side of Figure 1 offers the most opportunities for new research activities. Beyond this general observation, we offer more specifics on some new directions for research on personality change in organizations in the following paragraphs.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR PERSONALITY RESEARCH IN ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR

The growing evidence concerning personality change offers a rich set of opportunities for organiza- tional behavior researchers to build on and challenge existing work. We envisage a shift away from person- ality traits as “uncovered factors which we formulate in terms of static explanatory contents” (Gendlin, 1964) toward more dynamic approaches involving personal flexibility and change. In this section, we explore whether and how a dynamic perspective on personality can contribute to reconsidering our un- derstanding of central topics in organizational be- havior research, including leadership emergence and leaders’ behavior, personality-job fit, task design, and personnel selection. We suggest that this view of per- sonality as changing over time can help broaden and deepen the scope of theory and measurement of per- sonality in organizational research.

2018 479Tasselli, Kilduff, and Landis

Reconsidering Central Topics in Organizational Behavior Research

Leadership. There is growing interest in issues of authenticity in organizational life (Gardner, Cogliser, Davis, & Dickens, 2011) focused on individuals behaving in ways that reflect inner and self- transcendent values (Detert & Bruno, in press). For example, authentic leaders manage values such as honesty, loyalty and equality in their interaction with followers to gain relational authenticity (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). From this perspective, leaders draw from personality resources to foster self- awareness and self-regulated positive behaviors to- ward their followers (Luthans & Avolio, 2003: 243).

But the literature on individual leadership adapt- ability suggests that situational pressures, and the leaders’ ability to change their behavior in different social situations, are important determinants of leaders’ success (Blume, Baldwin, & Ryan, 2013). There is emerging interest in the attributes of leaders related to behavioral adaption and change (Zaccaro, 2007: 9). Such attributes can include emotional intelligence, cognitive skills, and flexibility. And leadership research investigates whether latent leadership traits, including charisma, are socially discovered and manifested in given social situations. For example, a recent study reinterpreting charis- matic leadership from a network personality per- spective analyzed whether leaders who occupied positions of centrality in team advice networks exhibited emergent charisma over time or whether charismatic leaders went on to occupy central net- work positions (Balkundi et al., 2011). Results showed that leaders’ centrality preceded the emer- gence of leader charisma. There is also growing in- terest in understanding whether and how charisma can spread from leaders to followers in organiza- tional settings: Followers tend to imitate charismatic leaders’ nonverbal behavior, enhancing in turn the expression of their personal charisma (Cherulnik et al., 2001).

The growing evidence that personality can change over time triggers future research opportunities concerning whether people can develop leader- relevant personalities through the occupation of or- ganizational roles, and whether successful leaders’ personalities may change if confronted with specific social situations.

Personality-job fit. According to existing ap- proaches to personality-job fit, people with specific attributes and traits are considered suitable to oc- cupy specific roles in organizations (Judge et al.,

2002b). By contrast, sociologists suggest that actors’ occupation of positions in social and organizational systems elicit specific role behaviors. In this sense, social structures and processes “vastly transcend the individual consciousness of actors” (Lorrain & White, 1971: 50). Personality, from a sociological view, is a set of characteristics granted by others. Each person develops a social personality that de- rives from occupation of “a particular place in the social space of a given society” (Warner & Lunt, 1941: 26). Recent research in this domain claims that the position occupied in organizational networks (e.g., a brokerage position spanning across gaps in social structure) is an indicator itself of social personality to the extent that actors display consistency in the network positions they occupy (Burt, 2012). Future research can examine the extent to which personal- ity coevolves with the different roles individuals play in organizations over time (Tasselli et al., 2015).

An increased understanding of personality change and flexibility has implications for research con- cerning the match between people and jobs. Job de- mands activate specific aspects of personality with consequences for individual performance at work (Hogan & Holland, 2003; Tett & Burnett, 2003). And the extent to which the individual’s personality is congruent with the demands of the job affects both job attitudes (O’Reilly, 1977) and job performance (Judge & Zapata, 2015; O’Reilly, 1977). This line of research has assumed fixed personality characteris- tics. Future research can examine the consequences of individuals’ efforts to change aspects of their personalities to fit the characteristics of jobs, and whether the occupation of idiosyncratic organiza- tional roles, including leadership positions, can generate relevant personality change in the service of organizational functioning. Future work should also examine how personality change, triggered by net- work roles or external events, can produce a misfit between individuals and their career paths with outcomes that may be more positive than negative for individuals (Kleinbaum, 2012).

Task design. Not everyone may be equally capa- ble of personality change within the context of fit with job roles. In task design research, there has been consistent interest in growth need strength, which represents the individual’s desire to grow and de- velop within the job role (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Pindek, Kessler, & Spector, 2017). Research shows that people with high growth need strength respond to supportive work contexts with more creative performance outcomes (Shalley, Gilson, & Blum, 2009). Future work is needed to investigate whether

480 JuneAcademy of Management Annals

interventions that have proved successful in chang- ing personality in nonwork settings are successful in affecting personality change in professional con- texts in which people experience stress and work pressure.

There is also a need for further research on the extent to which managers contribute to person-job fit by assigning individuals specific roles and tasks in the organization that prompt personality change. Relatedly, the question arises as to whether organi- zations can improve their overall performance by stimulating employees’ positive personality change via organizational and job design. Behavioral changes repeated over time can shape individuals’ personality traits (Magidson et al., 2014; Roberts & Jackson, 2008). People have agency in this process: To the extent that they invest over time in organiza- tional roles, they tend to enhance the positive aspects of their personalities (Lodi-Smith & Roberts, 2007). Future research can investigate the personality changes inherent in individuals’ decisions to radi- cally change their jobs and professions (Ibarra, 1999).

A further concept that may be useful in under- standing the links between personality change and the social context in which jobs are executed is sit- uational strength, defined in terms of “implicit or explicit cues provided by external entities regarding the desirability of potential behaviors” (Meyer, Dalal, & Hermida, 2009: 122). There is debate con- cerning whether an employee who belongs to two or more cohesive cliques faces highly constraining pressures (Krackhardt, 1999), or whether the cross- pressures from being a “multiple insider” who bro- kers across cliques frees the individual to enhance innovation by transferring ideas between otherwise disconnected individuals (Vedres & Stark, 2010). New research suggests that different personality types are differentially trusted to play this multiple insider role (Tasselli & Kilduff, in press). What is unclear is whether these kinds of vital informal brokerage tasks change personality, and whether, conversely, being embedded in a single clique protects the individual from pressures to change personality.

Personnel selection and development. The use of personality measures to select people for jobs con- tinues to generate research interest (Ryan & Ployhart, 2013), especially given that personality is used for selection and development efforts for senior execu- tives in organizations and for those seen as possess- ing high potential (Church & Rotolo, 2013). But the view of personality as changeable casts new light on the role of personality in personnel selection and

development. For example, future research can ex- plore how trait malleability affects choices about whether to hire people whose personality profiles do not initially align with the typical candidate profile associated with job success. Is it the case that, among a set of personality traits linked with job success, some are more malleable than others? Armed with knowledge of which traits are most malleable to change over time, employers may find themselves able to make informed choices about whether new employees’ organizational experiences are likely to change their traits over time, resulting in higher chances of employee success.

The emphasis in personnel management has been on the development of positive skills and abilities. Neglected in this research endeavor is the question of how dark-side personality characteristics (narcis- sism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy—Furnham, Richards, & Paulhus, 2013) flourish in organiza- tional settings, especially among chief executives (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007). What aspects of orga- nizational life may serve to reinforce and increase the prevalence of personality characteristics associated with diminished leadership effectiveness (Harms et al., 2011; Hogan, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2010; Khoo & Burch, 2008)?

Broadening and Deepening the Scope of Theory and Measurement

Alternatives to the Big Five. If new areas of per- sonality change research are to be opened, then re- searchers have to look for evidence of personality change rather than stability. Personality change at the individual level may be “obscured or nullified” in the typical aggregate studies of the Big Five that are standard in the field (Aldwin & Levenson, 1994). Correlations across time on personality dimensions of the order of 0.4 to 0.6 may mask evidence of con- siderable change at the individual as opposed to the group level (Aldwin & Levenson, 1994; Lamiell, 1987).

Thus, the view of the Big Five as a stable input into many organizational processes (Cobb-Clark & Schurer,2012: 11) is challenged by the extent to which personality changes (in part driven by volitional change—Hudson & Fraley, 2017). In organizations, the pressure for people to adapt themselves to changing roles and requirements is often intense (Raghuram, Wiesenfeld, & Garud, 2003). If “the im- portance of workers’ ability to adapt to novel situa- tions in the workplace and perform at an elevated levelmaycurrentlybemorecrucialthanever”(Huang

2018 481Tasselli, Kilduff, and Landis

et al., 2014: 162), then the investigation of whether, how, and when personality changes in organizations represents a vital research direction.

In contrast to prevailing orthodoxy, a change per- spective on personality recognizes the flexibility of the individual in adaptation to these pressures for change. Indeed, people differ in the extent to which they adjust their underlying personality profile (in terms, for example, of the Big Five) to situational contingencies. As an indicator of this role flexibil- ity, the self-monitoring personality construct has emerged as “especially relevant to network advan- tage” (Burt, Kilduff, & Tasselli, 2013: 538) because it captures the extent to which people exhibit a flexi- ble, responsive orientation to social cues and situa- tional demands (Snyder, 1974). High self-monitors monitor social situations and adapt their attitudes and behaviors appropriately (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000; Turnley & Bolino, 2001), whereas low self- monitors strive to be true to themselves in terms of adhering to their core values and beliefs (see Day, Shleicher, Unckless, & Hiller, 2002, for a meta- analysis of research in organizational settings). Re- search shows that self-monitoring moderates the relationship between Big Five personality traits and job performance such that Five-Factor traits are predictive of low self-monitors rather than high self- monitors (Barrick, Parks, & Mount, 2005; Oh, Charlier, Mount, & Berry, 2014).

It remains an open question whether the flexible personality patterns of high self-monitors result not just in temporary but in long-term personality change. If high self-monitors (relative to low self- monitors) tend to change more of their traits over time, then such adaptability may help explain why high self-monitors are more successful in orga- nizational careers requiring flexibility of self- presentation (Day & Schleicher, 2006; Kilduff & Day, 1994).

Related to self-monitoring differences is the notion— discrepant with traditional trait approaches, including the Big Five—that people vary in the extent to which their personalities are weak or strong. The construct of personality strength is de- fined as “the forcefulness of implicit or explicit in- ternal cues regarding the desirability of potential behaviors” (Dalal et al., 2015: 263). Strong person- alities tend to exhibit little variance in their behavior across situations, in the same way that low self- monitors strive to maintain consistency of behavior despite environmental cues. Future research, there- fore, can investigate the characteristics that differ- entiate weak from strong personalities, whether

strong personalities exhibit little underlying per- sonality change over time relative to weak person- alities, and whether personality change is related to outcomes in organizations, such as performance, promotion, and income, according to the social sit- uations and organizational roles that people occupy.

To actually capture personality change at the in- dividual as opposed to the aggregate level requires a rethinking of personality measurement. An idio- graphic perspective on personality offers one way to capture change at the individual level and yet pre- serve an overall nomothetic approach to personality differences (Lamiell, 2014). Idiographic approaches (Kelly, 1955) are able to reconcile evidence of per- sonality change over time and situations with our sense that each individual nevertheless maintains an ongoing and distinctive self. Idiographic approaches provide an affirmative answer to the question of whether there is some psychological feature that remains stable despite the changing stream of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that individuals exhibit.

One contemporary idiographic perspective models the variability in personality patterns over time and across social situations by way of distinctive, indi- vidual behavioral signatures (Shoda, Mischel, & Wright, 1994: 674). A professor might have a dis- tinctive extraversion signature, for example, that includes garrulous sociability in lecturing situations and in departmental meetings combined with in- hibition and restraint at social events. Idiographic perspectives can help organizational researchers understand how individuals change personality ex- pression across organizational roles and situations even as individuals exhibit distinctive patterns of cognitive and behavioral consistency.

Broad or narrow change? The understanding of personality as a dynamic entity entails these key questions: At what level of personality is change most likely? Do people exhibit broad patterns of change in response to coworkers and job demands in the work environment? Or do people exhibit change on one or more narrower characteristics? Personality traits are typically arranged hierarchically, with broad higher order traits such as conscientiousness subsuming narrower lower order traits such as in- dustriousness and orderliness (see DeYoung, Quilty, & Peterson, 2007). Researchers have focused on broad patterns of personality change, given the at- traction of the Big Five as a comprehensive organiz- ing framework (e.g., see the meta-analysis of predictable mean-level change in Big Five person- ality dimensions over the life course: Roberts et al.,

482 JuneAcademy of Management Annals

2006). But the focus on the Big Five dimensions of personality obscures potentially meaningful and interesting changes occurring at narrower, more specific aspects of the individual’s personality.

Future research can explore the extent to which personality changes within narrow aspects of each of the broad traits. For example, extraversion includes both sociability and assertiveness. Working alongside a chatty coworker may promote change in the in- dividual’s sociability, but leave unchanged the in- dividual’s assertiveness. Similarly, orderliness and industriousnessarebothaspectsofconscientiousness, and both may be changed through the day-to-day ex- perience of working as a post office clerk. Examining change only at the level of broad traits obscures pat- terns of change at more granular levels of personality.

Future research, therefore, can examine how re- lationships in the workplace relate to change in specific facets of the individual’s personality, building on recent research (Mund & Neyer, 2014) that shows how personality measured only in terms of broad personality factors (i.e., the Big Five— Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998; Neyer & Asendorpf, 2001) can obscure the effects of relationships on personality change. Mund and Neyer (2014) found numerous effects of relationship experiences on personality change with regard to narrow facets such as negative affect and self-reproach (facets of neu- roticism). There were three times as many relation- ship effects on personality facets as compared with the broad characteristics of personality.

A useful theoretical framework for addressing level issues emerges in trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003) that conceives of the work environ- ment as offering a host of interpersonal cues, each of which provides opportunities for trait expression. These cues come in different forms, including cues at the social level (a friendly coworker who wishes to chat), at the task level (having to discuss the features of a computer with a customer to make a sale), and at the organizational level (working in a company in which collegial values of collaboration are emphasized). Trait activation concepts are useful for understanding which aspects of personality are likely to be expressed and, by extension, undergo change over time. The behaviors that people routinely engage in can become crystallized in actual changes to underlying person- ality traits (Hudson & Fraley, 2015).

CONCLUSION

Can the individual’s personality change? The an- swer from this review is that, even without personal

volition, the individual is likely to experience posi- tive change over the life course in terms of increased social dominance, conscientiousness, and emo- tional stability (Roberts et al., 2006). But we have also uncovered evidence that individuals can make per- sonal efforts to engage in habitual actions that will accumulate into trait-level personality change (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005b). Implications for orga- nizational behavior research are profound. No longer can personality be relegated to the predictive, im- mutable status of an independent variable; person- ality can also be seen as a dependent variable—an outcome of self-development efforts, positive work environments, job roles, and work-related in- teractions. Of course, personality change can be inhibited by organizational routines that require people to enact precisely the same attitudes and be- haviors day after day like an actor going through the motions on the stage (March & Simon, 1958).

If the old maxim was that personality was un- changing, the new maxim from this review is that personality change is to be expected and, therefore, managed in organizations in which people experi- ment with provisional selves (Ibarra, 1999), and in which events and processes inside and outside of organizations shape personality with consequences for identity and reputation. The new view of orga- nizations is one of arenas in which people experience profound changes to what have been considered im- mutable aspects of the self. Personality change may be one of the most vital outcomes of organizational experience.

REFERENCES

Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. 1985. Organizational identity. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7: 263–295.

Aldwin, C. M., & Levenson, M. R. 1994. Aging and per- sonality assessment. In M. P. Lawton & J. A. Teresi (Eds.), Annual review of gerontology and geriatrics: Focus on assessment techniques, vol. 14: 182–209. New York, NY: Springer.

Alicke, M. D., & Sedikides, C. (Eds.). 2011. Handbook of self-enhancement and self-protection. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Allport, G. W. 1937. Personality: A psychological in- terpretation. New York, NY: H. Holt & Company.

Allport, G. W. 1961. Pattern and growth in personality. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. 1936. Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47: i–171.

2018 483Tasselli, Kilduff, and Landis

Asendorpf, J. B., & Wilpers, S. 1998. Personality effects on social relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 1531–1544.

Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. 2005. Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16: 315–338.

Balkundi, P., Kilduff, M., & Harrison, D. A. 2011. Centrality and charisma: Comparing how leader networks and attributions affect team performance. Journal of Ap- plied Psychology, 96: 1209–1222.

Bandura, A. 1999. Moral disengagement in the perpetra- tion of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psy- chology Review, 3: 193–209.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. 1991. The Big Five per- sonality dimensions and job performance: A meta- analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44: 1–26.

Barrick, M. R., Parks, L., & Mount, M. K. 2005. Self- monitoring as a moderator of the relationships be- tween personality traits and performance. Personnel Psychology, 58: 745–767.

Baumeister, R. F., Dale, K., & Sommer, K. L. 1998. Freudian defense mechanisms and empirical findings in mod- ern social psychology: Reaction formation, projection, displacement, undoing, isolation, sublimation, and denial. Journal of Personality, 66: 1081–1124.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. 1995. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental humanmotivation.PsychologicalBulletin,117:497–529.

Bell, N. E., & Staw, B. M. 1989. People as sculptors versus sculpture: The roles of personality and personal con- trol in organizations. Handbook of Career Theory, 11: 232–250.

Bem, D. J., & Allen, A. 1974. On predicting some of the people some of the time: The search for cross-situational consis- tencies in behavior. Psychological Review, 81: 506–520.

Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. 2007. In- terpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 410–424.

Block, J. H., & Airasian, P. W. 1971. Mastery learning: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Holt Rinehart & Winston.

Bloom, B. S. 1964. Stability and change in human char- acteristics. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Blume, B. D., Baldwin, T. T., & Ryan, K. C. 2013. Com- munication apprehension: A barrier to students’ leadership, adaptability, and multicultural apprecia- tion. Academy of Management Learning & Educa- tion, 12: 158–172.

Bolger, N., & Zuckerman, A. 1995. A framework for studying personality in the stress process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69: 890–902.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. 2004. Personality and trans- formational and transactional leadership: A meta- analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 9012910.

Borman, W. C. 1987. Personal constructs, performance schemata, and “folk theories” of subordinate effec- tiveness: Explorations in an army officer sample. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 40: 307–322.

Borman, W. C., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D., & Motowidlo, S. J. 2001. Personality predictors of citizenship per- formance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9: 52–69.

Boyce, C. J., Wood, A. M., Daly, M., & Sedikides, C. 2015. Personality change following unemployment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100: 991–1011.

Brickman, P., & Campbell, D. T. 1971. Hedonic relativism and planning the good science. In M. H. Appley (Ed.), Adaptation-level theory: 287–305. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Brooks, D. N., & McKinlay, W. 1983. Personality and behavioural change after severe blunt head injury—A relative’s view. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 46: 336–344.

Brousseau, K. R., & Prince, J. B. 1981. Job-person dynamics: An extension of longitudinal research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66: 59–62.

Burt, R. S. 2012. Network-related personality and the agency question: Multirole evidence from a virtual world. American Journal of Sociology, 118: 543–591.

Burt, R. S., Kilduff, M., & Tasselli, S. 2013. Social network analysis: Foundations and frontiers on advantage. Annual Review of Psychology, 64: 527–547.

Cacioppo, J. T., Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. 2009. Alone in the crowd: The structure and spread of loneliness in a large social network. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 97: 977–991.

Cahalan, D., Cisin, I. H., & Crossley, H. M. 1969. American drinking practices: A national study of drinking be- havior and attitudes. Monographs of the Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies, 6.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. 2002. The hopeful optimist. Psychological Inquiry, 13: 288–290.

Casciaro, T., Barsade, S. G., Edmondson, A. C., Gibson, C. B., Krackhardt, D., & Labianca, G. 2015. The in- tegration of psychological and network perspectives in organizational scholarship. Organization Science, 26: 1162–1176.

Chapman, B. P., Hampson, S., & Clarkin, J. 2014. Personality-informed interventions for healthy aging: Conclusions from a National Institute on Ag- ing work group. Developmental Psychology, 50: 1426–1441.

484 JuneAcademy of Management Annals

Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. 2007. It’s all about me: Narcissistic chief executive officers and their effects on company strategy and performance. Administra- tive Science Quarterly, 52: 351–386.

Cherulnik, P. D., Donley, K. A., Wiewel, T. S. R., & Miller, S. R. 2001. Charisma is contagious: The effect of leaders’ charisma on observers’ affect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31: 2149–2159.

Church, A. H., & Rotolo, C. T. 2013. How are top companies assessing their high-potentials and senior executives? A talent management benchmark study. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 65: 199–223.

Clark, D. M., Ehlers, A., McManus, F., Hackmann, A., Fennell, M., Campbell, H., Flower, T., Davenport, C., & Louis, B. 2003. Cognitive therapy versus fluoxetine in generalized social phobia: A randomized placebo- controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71: 1058–1067.

Cloninger, C. R. 1986. A unified biosocial theory of per- sonality and its role in the development of anxiety states. Psychiatric Developments, 3: 167–226.

Cobb-Clark, D. A., & Schurer, S. 2012. The stability of Big Five personality traits. Economics Letters, 115: 11–15.

Cohen, G. L., & Garcia, J. 2008. Identity, belonging, and achievement: A model, interventions, implications. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17: 365–369.

Cohen, G. L., & Sherman, D. K. 2014. The psychology of change: Self-affirmation and social psychological intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 65: 333–371.

Colbert, A. E., Bono, J. E., & Purvanova, R. K. 2016. Flour- ishing via workplace relationships: Moving beyond instrumental support. Academy of Management Journal, 59: 1199–1223.

Collins, C. J., Hanges, P. J., & Locke, E. A. 2004. The relationship of achievement motivation to entre- preneurial behavior: A meta-analysis. Human Per- formance, 17: 95–117.

Cornelius, N. 2015. Personal construct theory, research, and practice in the field of business and management. In D. A. Winter & N. Reed (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of personal construct psychology: 267–281. Chi- chester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. 1988. Personality in adult- hood: a six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54: 853–863.

Costa, P. T., & Mccrae, R. R. 1998. Trait theories of per- sonality. In D. F. Barone, M. Hersen & V. B. V. Hasselt

(Eds.), Advanced personality: 103–121. New York , NY: Plenum.

Cuijpers, P., Donker, T., van Straten, A., Li, J., & Andersson, G. 2010. Is guided self-help as effective as face-to-face psychotherapy for depression and anxiety disorders? A systematic review and meta-analysis of compara- tive outcome studies. Psychological Medicine, 40: 1943–1957.

Dabbs, J. M., Hargrove, M. F., & Heusel, C. 1996. Testos- terone differences among college fraternities: Well- behaved vs. rambunctious. Personality and Individual Differences, 20: 157–161.

Dalal, R. S., Meyer, R. D., Bradshaw, R. P., Green, J. P., Kelly, E. D., & Zhu, M. 2015. Personality strength and situational influences on behavior: A conceptual re- view and research agenda. Journal of Management, 41: 261–287.

Davis-Blake, A., & Pfeffer, J. 1989. Just a mirage: The search for dispositional effects in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 14: 385–400.

Day, D. V., & Schleicher, D. J. 2006. Self-monitoring at work: A motive-based perspective. Journal of Per- sonality, 74: 685–714.

Day, D. V., Shleicher, D. J., Unckless, A. L., & Hiller, N. J. 2002. Self-monitoring personality at work: A meta- analytic investigation of construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 390–401.

Deinert, A., Homan, A. C., Boer, D., Voelpel, S. C., & Gutermann, D. 2015. Transformational leadership sub-dimensions and their link to leaders’ personality and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 26: 1095–1120.

Detert, J., & Bruno, E. In press. Workplace courage: Re- view, synthesis, and future agenda for a complex construct. Academy of Management Annals.

de Vries, T. A., Walter, F., Van der Vegt, G. S., & Essens, P. J. 2014. Antecedents of individuals’ interteam co- ordination: Broad functional experiences as a mixed blessing. Academy of Management Journal, 57: 1334–1359.

DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. 2007. Between facets and domains: Ten aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93: 880–96.

Dickie, V. A. 2003. Establishing worker identity: A study of people in craftwork. American Journal of Occupa- tional Therapy, 57: 250–261.

Didehbani, N., Cullum, C. M., Mansinghani, S., Conover, H., & Hart, J. 2013. Depressive symptoms and con- cussions in aging retired NFL players. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 28: 418–424.

Du,L.,Bakish,D.,Ravindran,A.V.,&Hrdina,P.D.2002.Does fluoxetine influence major depression by modifying

2018 485Tasselli, Kilduff, and Landis

five-factor personality traits? Journal of Affective Disorders, 71: 235–241.

Dweck, C. S. 1999. Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis/Psychology Press.

Dweck, C. S. 2008. Can personality be changed? The role of beliefs in personality and change. Current Direc- tions in Psychological Science, 17: 391–394.

Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. 2010. Decision making in groups: Theory and practice. In P. C. Nutt & D. C. Wilson (Eds.), Handbook of decision making: 231–272. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Edmonds, G. W., Jackson, J. J., Fayard, J. V., & Roberts, B. W. 2008. Is character fate, or is there hope to change my personality yet? Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2: 399–413.

Epstein, S., & O’Brien, E. J. 1985. The person-situation debate in historical and current perspective. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 98: 513–537.

Ertug, G., & Castellucci, F. 2013. Getting what you need: How reputation and status affect team performance, hiring, and salaries in the NBA. Academy of Man- agement Journal, 56: 407–431.

Fang, R., Landis, B., Zhang, Z., Anderson, M. H., Shaw, J. D., & Kilduff, M. 2015. Integrating personality and social networks: A meta-analysis of personality, net- work position, and work outcomes in organizations. Organization Science, 26: 1243–1260.

Farmer, R. F., & Chapman, A. L. 2016. Behavioral activation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Feiler, D. C., & Kleinbaum, A. M. 2015. Popularity, simi- larity, and the network extraversion bias. Psycholog- ical Science, 26: 593–603.

Fink, K. 2003. Magnitude of trauma and personality change. The International Journal of Psychoanaly- sis, 84: 985–995.

Fleeson, W. 2004. Moving personality beyond the person- situation debate: The challenge and the opportunity of within-person variability. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13: 83–87.

Foulk, T., Woolum, A., & Erez, A. 2016. Catching rudeness is like catching a cold: The contagion effects of low- intensity negative behaviors. Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 101: 50–67.

Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. 2008. Dynamic spread of happiness in a large social network: Longitudinal analysis over 20 years in the Framingham Heart Study. British Medical Journal, 337: a2338.

Freud, S. 1923. The ego and the id. Standard edition, vol. 19: 3–66. London, UK: Hogarth Press.

Funder, D. C. 1991. Global traits: A neo-Allportian approach to personality. Psychological Science, 2: 31–39.

Funder, D. C. 1997. The personality puzzle. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co.

Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. 2013. The dark triad of personality: A 10 year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7: 199–216.

Gable, S. L., & Haidt, J. 2005. What (and why) is positive psychology? Review of General Psychology, 9: 103–110.

Gangestad, S. W., & Snyder, M. 2000. Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126: 530–555.

Garcia, J., & Cohen, G. L. 2013. A social psychological approach to educational intervention. In E. Shafir (Ed.), The behavioral foundations of policy: 329–350. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. 2011. Authentic leadership: A review of the lit- erature and research agenda. The Leadership Quar- terly, 22: 1120–1145.

Gendlin, E. T. 1964. A theory of personality change. In P. Worchel & D. Byrne (Eds.), Personality change: 100–148. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Gerhart, B. 1987. How important are dispositional factors as determinants of job satisfaction? Implications for job design and other personnel programs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72: 366–373.

Gerhart, B. 2005. The (affective) dispositional approach to job satisfaction: Sorting out the policy implications. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26: 79–97.

Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M., & Corley, K. G. 2000. Organiza- tional identity, image, and adaptive instability. Acad- emy of Management Review, 25: 63–81.

Glenn,N.D.1980.Values,attitudes,andbeliefs.InO.G.Brim, Jr. & J. Kagan (Eds.), Constancy and change in human development: 596–640. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Goffman, E. 1961. On the characteristics of total in- stitutions. In Symposium on preventive and social psychiatry: 43–84. Washington, DC: Walter Reed Army Medical Centre.

Goldberg, L. R. 1993. The structure of phenotypic person- ality traits. American Psychologist, 48: 26–34.

Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. 2009. Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and proactive per- spectives. Academy of Management Annals, 3: 317–375.

Grounds, A. 2004. Psychological consequences of wrong- ful conviction and imprisonment. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 46: 165–182.

Guiora, A. Z., & Acton, W. R. 1979. Personality and lan- guage behavior: A restatement. Language Learning, 29: 193–204.

486 JuneAcademy of Management Annals

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1976. Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16: 250–279.

Halbesleben, J. R., & Bowler, W. M. 2007. Emotional ex- haustion and job performance: The mediating role of motivation.JournalofAppliedPsychology,92:93–106.

Hall, D. 1995. Unplanned executive transitions and the dance of subidentities. Human Resource Manage- ment, 34: 71–92.

Hampson, S. E., & Goldberg, L. R. 2006. A first large cohort study of personality trait stability over the 40 years between elementary school and midlife. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91: 763–779.

Harms, P. D., Roberts, B. W., & Winter, D. 2006. Becoming the Harvard man: Person-environment fit, personality development, and academic success. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32: 851–865.

Harms, P. D., Spain, S. M., & Hannah, S. T. 2011. Leader development and the dark side of personality. The Leadership Quarterly, 22: 495–509.

Harris, M. A., Brett, C. E., Johnson, W., & Deary, I. J. 2016. Personality stability from age 14 to age 77 years. Psy- chology and Aging, 31: 862–874.

Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. 2006. How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic compari- sons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 305–325.

Hennecke, M., & Freund, A. M. 2017. The development of goals and motivation. In J. Specht (Ed.), Personality development across the lifespan: 257–273. London, UK: Academic Press.

Hicks, B. M., Durbin, C. E., Blonigen, D. M., Iacono, W. G., & McGue, M. 2012. Relationship between personality change and the onset and course of alcohol dependence in young adulthood. Addiction, 107: 540–548.

Hobfoll, S. E. 1989. Conservation of resources: A new at- tempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psycholo- gist, 44: 513–524.

Hogan, J., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. 2010. Management derailment. APA Handbook of Industrial and Orga- nizational Psychology, 3: 555–575.

Hogan, J., & Holland, B. 2003. Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A socio- analytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 100–112.

Hogan, R. 1982. A socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. Page & R. Dienstbier (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: 55–89. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Hogan, R. 1996. A socioanalytic perspective. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical

perspectives: 163–217. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Huang, J. L., Ryan, A. M., Zabel, K. L., & Palmer, A. 2014. Personality and adaptive performance at work: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 99: 162–179.

Hudson, N. W., & Fraley, R. C. 2015. Volitional personality trait change: Can people choose to change their per- sonality traits? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109: 490–507.

Hudson, N. W., & Fraley, R. C. 2016. Changing for the better? Longitudinal associations between volitional personality change and psychological well-being. Per- sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42: 603–615.

Hudson, N. W., & Fraley, R. C. 2017. Volitional personality change. In J. Specht (Ed.), Personality development across the lifespan: 401–417. London, UK: Academic Press.

Hudson, N. W., & Roberts, B. W. 2016. Social investment in work reliably predicts change in conscientiousness and agreeableness: A direct replication and extension of Hudson, Roberts, and Lodi-Smith (2012). Journal of Research in Personality, 60: 12–23.

Hülür, G. 2017. Cohort differences in personality. In J. Specht (Ed.), Personality development across the lifespan: 520–536. London, UK: Academic Press.

Ibarra, H. 1999. Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation. Ad- ministrative Science Quarterly, 44: 764–791.

Jackson, J. J. 2011. The effects of educational experiences on personality trait development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana- Champaign, IL.

Jackson, J. J., Bogg, T., Walton, K. E., Wood, D., Harms, P. D., Lodi-Smith, J., Edmonds, G. W., & Roberts, B. W. 2009. Not all conscientiousness scales change alike: A multimethod, multisample study of age differences in the facets of conscientiousness. Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96: 446–459.

Jackson, J. J., Thoemmes, F., Jonkmann, K., Lüdtke, O., & Trautwein, U. 2012. Military training and personality trait development: Does the military make the man, or does the man make the military? Psychological Science, 23: 270–277.

James, W. 1890. The principles of psychology, vol. 2. New York, NY: H. Holt & Company.

James, W. 1988. The moral equivalent of war. In B. Kuklick (Ed.), Writings 1902–1910: 1281–1293. New York, NY: Library of America (Original work published 1910).

Jang, K. L., McCrae, R. R., Angleitner, A., Riemann, R., & Livesley, W. J. 1998. Heritability of facet-level traits in

2018 487Tasselli, Kilduff, and Landis

a cross-cultural twin sample: Support for a hierarchi- cal model of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 1556–1565.

Jayawickreme, E., & Blackie, L. E. 2014. Post-traumatic growth as positive personality change: Evidence, controversies and future directions. European Jour- nal of Personality, 28: 312–331.

Johnson, W., McGue, M., & Krueger, R. F. 2005. Personality stability in late adulthood: A behavioral genetic anal- ysis. Journal of Personality, 73: 523–552.

Jokela, M., Kivimäki, M., Elovainio, M., & Keltikangas- Järvinen, L. 2009. Personality and having children: A two-way relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96: 218–230.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. 2002a. Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quanti- tative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 765–780.

Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D. 1995. An empirical investigation of the predictors of executive career success. Personnel Psychology, 48: 485–519.

Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. 2002b. Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-anal- ysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 530–541.

Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. 2002. Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 797–807.

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.

Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 692–724.

Kelly, G. A. 1955. The psychology of personal constructs, (2 vols.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co.

Kelly, G. A. 1963. A theory of personality. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co.

Khoo, H. S., & Burch, G. S. J. 2008. The “dark side” of leadership personality and transformational leader- ship: An exploratory study. Personality and Indi- vidual Differences, 44: 86–97.

Kilduff, M., Crossland, C., Tsai, W., & Bowers, M. T. 2016. Magnification and correction of the acolyte effect: Initial benefits and ex post settling up in NFL coaching careers. Academy of Management Journal, 59: 352–375.

Kilduff, M., & Day, D. V. 1994. Do chameleons get ahead? The effects of self-monitoring on managerial careers. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 1047–1060.

Klein, K. J., Lim, B. C., Saltz, J. L., & Mayer, D. M. 2004. How do they get there? An examination of the antecedents of centrality in team networks. Academy of Man- agement Journal, 47: 952–963.

Kleinbaum, A. M. 2012. Organizational misfits and the origins of brokerage in intrafirm networks. Adminis- trative Science Quarterly, 57: 407–452.

Kohn, M. L., & Schooler, C. 1978. The reciprocal effects of the substantive complexity of work and intellectual flexibility: A longitudinal assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 84: 24–52.

Kouchaki, M., & Desai, S. D. 2015. Anxious, threatened, and also unethical: How anxiety makes individuals feel threatened and commit unethical acts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100: 360–375.

Krackhardt, D. 1999. The ties that torture: Simmelian tie analysis in organizations. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 16: 183–210.

Lamb, H. R., & Weinberger, L. E. 1998. Persons with severe mental illness in jails and prisons: A review. Psychi- atric Services, 43: 483–492.

Lamiell, J. T. 1987. The psychology of personality: An epistemological inquiry. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Lamiell, J. T. 2014. The case for an idiothetic psychology of personality: A conceptual and empirical foundation. Progress in Experimental Personality Research, 11: 1–64.

Landis, B. 2016. Personality and social networks in orga- nizations: A review and future directions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31: S107–S121.

Lehnart, J., & Neyer, F. J. 2006. Should I stay or should I go? Attachment and personality in stable and insta- ble romantic relationships. European Journal of Personality, 20: 475–495.

Li, N., Barrick, M. R., Zimmerman, R. D., & Chiaburu, D. S. 2014. Retaining the productive employee: The role of personality. Academy of Management Annals, 8: 347–395.

Li, W. D., Fay, D., Frese, M., Harms, P. D., & Gao, X. Y. 2014. Reciprocal relationship between proactive personality and work characteristics: A latent change score ap- proach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99: 948–965.

Little, B. R. 1983. Personal projects: A rationale and method for investigation. Environment and Behav- ior, 15: 273–309.

Littlefield, A. K., Sher, K. J., & Wood, P. K. 2009. Is “ma- turing out” of problematic alcohol involvement re- lated to personality change? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 118: 360–374.

Liu, J., Chen, X., Li, D., & French, D. 2012. Shyness- sensitivity, aggression, and adjustment in urban

488 JuneAcademy of Management Annals

Chinese adolescents at different historical times. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22: 393–399.

Lodi-Smith, J., & Roberts, B. W. 2007. Social investment and personality: A meta-analysis of the relationship of personality traits to investment in work, family, religion, and volunteerism. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11: 68–86.

Lorrain, F., & White, H. C. 1971. Structural equivalence of individuals in social networks. Journal of Mathe- matical Sociology, 1: 49–80.

Lucas, R. E., Clark, A. E., Georgellis, Y., & Diener, E. 2004. Unemployment alters the set point for life satisfaction. Psychological Science, 15: 8–13.

Lüdtke, O., Roberts, B. W., Trautwein, U., & Nagy, G. 2011. A random walk down university avenue: Life paths, life events, and personality trait change at the transi- tion to university life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101: 620–637.

Luthans, F. 2002. The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 695–706.

Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. 2003. Authentic leadership: A positive development approach. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organiza- tional scholarship: 241–261. San Francisco, CA: Barrett-Koehler.

Lykken, D., & Tellegen, A. 1996. Happiness is a stochastic phenomenon. Psychological Science, 7: 186–189.

Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. 2005a. The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bullettin, 131: 803–855.

Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. 2005b. Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustain- able change. Review of General Psychology, 9: 111–131.

Magidson, J. F., Roberts, B. W., Collado-Rodriguez, A., & Lejuez, C. W. 2014. Theory-driven intervention for changing personality: Expectancy value theory, be- havioral activation, and conscientiousness. Develop- mental Psychology, 50: 1442–1450.

Mahoney, M. J. 2002. Constructivism and positive psy- chology. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Hand- book of positive psychology: 45–750. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. 1958. Organizations. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Maslow, A. 1954. Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Maslow, A. 1968. Toward a psychology of being. New York, NY: Van Nostrand.

Maurer, T. J., & Lippstreu, M. 2008. Expert vs. general work- ing sample differences in KSAO “improvability” ratings

and relationships with measures relevant to occupa- tional and organizational psychology. Journal of Occu- pational and Organizational Psychology, 81: 813–829.

McAdams, D. P. 1993. The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of the self. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

McClelland, D. C. 1965. Toward a theory of motive acqui- sition. American Psychologist, 20: 321–333.

McClelland, D. C. 1987. Human motivation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. 1994. The stability of personality: Observations and evaluations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3: 173–175.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. 2003. Personality in adult- hood: A five-factor theory perspective. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. 2008. Empirical and theoret- ical status of the five-factor model of personality traits. In G. Boyle, G. Matthews & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assess- ment: 273–294. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McLean, K. C. 2017. And the story evolves: The develop- ment of personal narratives and narrative identity. In J. Specht (Ed.), Personality development across the lifespan: 325–338. London, UK: Academic Press.

McQueen, A., & Klein, W. M. 2006. Experimental manip- ulations of self-affirmation: A systematic review. Self Identity, 5: 289–354.

Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S., & Hermida, R. 2009. A review and synthesis of situational strength in the organizational sciences. Journal of Management, 36: 121–140.

Miller, A. 2008. A critique of positive psychology—Or “the new science of happiness.” Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42: 591–608.

Mischel, W. 1968. Personality and assessment. London, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Mischel, W. 1973. Toward a cognitive social learning rec- onceptualization of personality. Psychological Re- view, 80: 252–283.

Mischel, W. 1979. On the interface of cognition and per- sonality: Beyond the person-situation debate. Ameri- can Psychologist, 34: 740–754.

Mischel, W. 2004. Toward an integrative science of the person. Annual Review of Psychology, 55: 1–22.

Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. 1995. A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102: 246–268.

Mitchell, T. R. 1997. Matching motivational strategies with organizational contexts. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19: 57–150.

2018 489Tasselli, Kilduff, and Landis

Mortimer, J. T., & Lorence, J. 1979. Work experience and occupational value socialization: A longitudinal study. American Journal of Sociology, 84: 1361–1385.

Mroczek, D. K., Almeida, D. M., Spiro, A., & Pafford, C. 2006. Modeling intraindividual stability and change in personality. In D. K. Mroczek & T. D. Little (Eds.), Handbook of personality development: 163–180. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mroczek, D. K., & Spiro, A. 2007. Personality change in- fluences mortality in older men. Psychological Sci- ence, 18: 371–376.

Mund, M., & Neyer, F. J. 2014. Treating personality- relationship transactions with respect: Narrow fac- ets, advanced models, and extended time frames. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107: 352–368.

Murray, H. A. 1938. Explorations in personality. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Neimeyer, R. A. 1993. An appraisal of constructivist psy- chotherapies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61: 221–234.

Neyer, F. J., & Asendorpf, J. B. 2001. Personality-relationship transaction in young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81: 1190–1204.

Neyer, F. J., & Lehnart, J. 2007. Relationships matter in personality development: Evidence from an 8-year longitudinal study across young adulthood. Journal of Personality, 75: 535–568.

Niess, C. 2014. Reciprocal influences between person- ality traits and career transitions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

Oh, I. S., Charlier, S. D., Mount, M. K., & Berry, C. M. 2014. The two faces of high self-monitors: Chameleonic moderating effects of self-monitoring on the relation- ships between personality traits and counterproduc- tive work behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35: 92–111.

O’Reilly, C. A. 1977. Personality-job fit: Implications for individual attitudes and performance. Organi- zational Behavior and Human Performance, 18: 36–46.

Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2010. Expanding the criterion domain to include organiza- tional citizenship behavior: Implications for em- ployee selection. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: 281–323. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. 1995. A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organiza- tional citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48: 775–802.

Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. 2010. Taking stock: In- tegrating and differentiating multiple proactive be- haviors. Journal of Management, 36: 633–662.

Pervin, L. A. 1994. A critical analysis of current trait theory. Psychological Inquiry, 5: 103–113.

Piedmont, R. L. 2001. Cracking the plaster cast: Big Five personality change during intensive outpatient coun- seling. Journal of Research in Personality, 35: 500–520.

Pindek, S., Kessler, S. R., & Spector, P. E. 2017. A quanti- tative and qualitative review of what meta-analyses have contributed to our understanding of human re- source management. Human Resource Management Review, 27: 26–38.

Podolny, J. M. 2001. Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. American Journal of Sociology, 107: 33–60.

Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. 2006. Constructing professional identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents. Academy of Man- agement Journal, 49: 235–262.

Priesemuth, M., & Taylor, R. M. 2016. The more I want, the less I have left to give: The moderating role of psy- chological entitlement on the relationship between psychological contract violation, depressive mood states, and citizenship behavior. Journal of Organi- zational Behavior, 37: 967–982.

Raghuram, S., Wiesenfeld, B., & Garud, R. 2003. Technol- ogy enabled work: The role of self-efficacy in de- termining telecommuter adjustment and structuring behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63: 180– 198.

Ragins, B. R., Lyness, K. S., Williams, L. J., & Winkel, D. 2014. Life spillovers: The spillover of fear of home foreclosure to the workplace. Personnel Psychology, 67: 763–800.

Reger, R. K., Gustafson, L. T., Demarie, S. M., & Mullane, J. V. 1994. Reframing the organization: Why imple- menting total quality is easier said than done. Acad- emy of Management Review, 19: 565–584.

Robbins, B. D. 2008. What is the good life? Positive psy- chology and the renaissance of humanistic psychol- ogy. The Humanistic Psychologist, 36: 96–112.

Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. 2017. Organizational be- havior. Harlow, UK: Pearson.

Roberts, B. W. 1997. Plaster or plasticity: Are work expe- riences associated with personality change in women? Journal of Personality, 65: 205–232.

Roberts, B. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. 2003. Work ex- periences and personality development in young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, 84: 582–593.

490 JuneAcademy of Management Annals

Roberts, B. W., & Donahue, E. M. 1994. One personality, multiple selves: Integrating personality and social roles. Journal of Personality, 62: 199–218.

Roberts, B. W., & Jackson, J. J. 2008. Sociogenomic per- sonality psychology. Journal of Personality, 76: 1523–1544.

Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. 2007. The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeco- nomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting im- portant life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2: 313–345.

Roberts, B. W., Luo, J., Briley, D. A., Chow, P. I., Su, R., & Hill, P. L. 2017. A systematic review of personality trait change through intervention. Psychological Bulletin, 143: 117–141.

Roberts, B. W., & Mroczek, D. 2008. Personality trait change in adulthood. Current Directions in Psycho- logical Science, 17: 31–35.

Roberts, B. W., & Nickel, L. B. 2017. A critical evalua- tion of the neo-socioanalytic model of personality. In J. Specht (Ed.), Personality development across the lifespan: 157–177. London, UK: Academic Press.

Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. 2006. Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132: 1–25.

Roberts, B. W., & Wood, D. 2006. Personality development in the context of the neo-socioanalytic model of per- sonality. In D. K. Mroczek & T. D. Little (Eds.), Hand- book of personality development: 11–39. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Roberts, B. W., Wood, D., & Caspi, A. 2008. The de- velopment of personality traits in adulthood. Handbook of personality: Theory and research, 3: 375–398.

Roberts, L. M., Dutton, J. E., Spreitzer, G. M., Heaphy, E. D., & Quinn, R. E. 2005. Composing the reflected best-self portrait: Building pathways for becoming extraordi- nary in work organizations. Academy of Manage- ment Review, 30: 712–736.

Rogers, C. R. 1947. Some observations on the organization of personality. American Psychologist, 2: 358–368.

Rogers, C. R. 2007. The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 3: 240–248.

Rogers, C. R. 2012. On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. Boston, MA: Houghton Mif- flin Harcourt.

Rosenquist, J. N., Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. 2011. Social network determinants of depression. Molecu- lar Psychiatry, 16: 273–281.

Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., & Evans, D. E. 2000. Tem- perament and personality: Origins and outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78: 122–135.

Rotter, J. B. 1954. Social learning and clinical psychol- ogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ryan, A. M., & Ployhart, R. E. 2013. Customer service be- havior. Handbook of Psychology, 12: 341–366.

Sabelli, H. C., & Carlson-Sabelli, L. 1989. Biological prior- ity and psychological supremacy: A new interrogative paradigm derived from process theory. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 146: 1541–1551.

Sackett, P. R. 2002. The structure of counterproductive work behaviors: Dimensionality and relationships with facets of job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10: 5–11.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. 1978. A social informa- tion processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23: 224–253.

Sapir, E. 1934. The emergence of the concept of personality in a study of cultures. Journal of Social Psychology, 5: 408–415.

Schmitt, N. 2014. Personality and cognitive ability as pre- dictorsofeffectiveperformanceatwork.AnnualReview of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1: 45–65.

Schneider, B., Smith, D. B., Taylor, S., & Fleenor, J. 1998. Personality and organizations: A test of the homoge- neity of personality hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 462–470.

Schult, J., & Sparfeldt, J. R. 2015. Compulsory military ser- vice and personality development. SOEPpaper, No. 751. Accessed May 8, 2018. https://papers.ssrn.com/ sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id52602703.

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.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. 2000. Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psycholo- gist, 55: 5–14.

Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. 2009. Interac- tive effects of growth need strength, work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative per- formance. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 489–505.

Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Wright, J. C. 1994. Intra- individual stability in the organization and pat- terning of behavior: Incorporating psychological situations into the idiographic analysis of person- ality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 67: 674–687.

2018 491Tasselli, Kilduff, and Landis

Smith, M. L., Glass, G. V., & Miller, T. I. 1980. The benefits of psychotherapy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (Eds.). 2009. Oxford handbook of positive psychology. New York, NY: Oxford Uni- versity Press.

Snyder, M. 1974. Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30: 526–537.

Soldz, S., & Vaillant, G. E. 1999. The Big Five personality traits and the life course: A 45-year longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Personality, 33: 208–232.

Soskin, D. P., Carl, J. R., Alpert, J., & Fava, M. 2012. Anti- depressant effects on emotional temperament: To- ward a biobehavioral research paradigm for major depressive disorder. CNS Neuroscience & Thera- peutics, 18: 441–451.

Soto, C. 2016. Personality can change over a lifetime, and usually for the better. Health News from National PublicRadio.Availableat:http://www.npr.org/sections/ health-shots/2016/06/30/484053435/personality-can- change-over-a-lifetime-and-usually-for-the-better. Accessed July 5, 2016.

Specht, J., Egloff, B., & Schmukle, S. C. 2011. Stability and change of personality across the life course: The im- pact of age and major life events on mean-level and rank-order stability of the Big Five. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 101: 862–882.

Srivastava, S., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. 2003. Development of personality in early and middle adulthood: Set like plaster or persistent change? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84: 1041–1053.

Staw, B. M., Bell, N. E., & Clausen, J. A. 1986. The dispo- sitional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime longitu- dinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31: 56–77.

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.

Stephan, Y., Sutin, A. R., & Terracciano, A. 2014. Physical activity and personality development across adult- hood and old age: Evidence from two longitudinal studies. Journal of Research in Personality, 49: 1–7.

Stephan, Y., Sutin, A. R., & Terracciano, A. 2015. How old do you feel? The role of age discrimination and biological aging in subjective age. PloS One, 10: e0119293.

Stewart, A. J., & Deaux, K. 2012. Personality and social contexts as sources of change and continuity across the life span. In K. Deaux & M. Snyder (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of personality and social psy- chology. London, UK: Oxford University Press.

Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. 2004. Four lessons learned from the person-situation debate: A review and re- search agenda. In D. B. Smith & B. Schneider (Eds.), Personality and organizations: 61–85. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Ltd.

Stoll, G., & Trautwein, U. 2017. Vocational interests as personality traits: Characteristics, development, and significance in educational and organizational environ- ments. In J. Specht (Ed.), Personality development across the lifespan: 401–417. London, UK: Academic Press.

Swann, W. B., & Read, S. J. 1981. Self-verification pro- cesses: How we sustain our self-conceptions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17: 351–372.

Tasselli, S., & Kilduff, M. In press. When brokerage between friendship cliques endangers trust: A personality- network fit perspective. Academy of Management Journal (In press).

Tasselli, S., Kilduff, M., & Menges, J. I. 2015. The micro- foundations of organizational social networks: A re- view and an agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 41: 1361–1387.

Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. 2003. A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 500–517.

Thern,E.,deMunter,J.,Hemmingsson,T.,&Rasmussen,F.In press. Long-term effects of youth unemployment on mental health: Does an economic crisis make a differ- ence?JournalofEpidemiologyandCommunityHealth.

Trice, H. M. 1962. The job behavior of problem drinkers. Society, culture and drinking patterns. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Turnley, W. H., & Bolino, M. C. 2001. Achieving desired images while avoiding undesired images: Exploring the role of self-monitoring in impression management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 351–360.

Vedres, B., & Stark, D. 2010. Structural folds: Generative disruption in overlapping groups. American Journal of Sociology, 115: 1150–1190.

Wagner, J., Lüdtke, O., Jonkmann, K., & Trautwein, U. 2013. Cherish yourself: Longitudinal patterns and conditions of self-esteem change in the transition to young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104: 148–163.

Walker, B. M., & Winter, D. A. 2007. The elaboration of personal construct psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 58: 453–477.

Warner, W. L., & Lunt, P. S. 1941. The social life of a modern community. New Haven, CT: Yale Univer- sity Press.

Watson, D. 2002. Positive affectivity: The disposition to experience pleasurable emotional states. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of

492 JuneAcademy of Management Annals

positive psychology: 106–119. London, UK: Oxford University Press.

Watson, D., & Humrichouse, J. 2006. Personality develop- ment in emerging adulthood: Integrating evidence from self-ratings and spouse ratings. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 91: 959–974.

Webb, G., Shakeshaft, A., Sanson-Fisher, R., & Havard, A. 2009. A systematic review of work-place interventions for alcohol-related problems. Addiction, 104: 365–377.

Weiss, A., Bates, T. C., & Luciano, M. 2008. Happiness is a personal (ity) thing: The genetics of personality and well-being in a representative sample. Psychological Science, 19: 205–210.

West, M., Nicholson, N., & Arnold, J. 1987. Identity changes as outcomes of work-role transitions. In T. Honess & K. Yardley (Eds.), Self and identity: Perspectives across the lifespan: 287–303. New York, NY: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Wiggins, J. S. 1991. Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates for the understanding and measurement of interpersonal behavior. In D.Cicchetti& W. M. Grove (Eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology: Essays in honor of Paul E. Meehl, vol. 1: 89–113. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Wille, B., Beyers, W., & De Fruyt, F. 2012. A transactional approach to person-environment fit: Reciprocal re- lations between personality development and career role growth across young to middle adulthood. Jour- nal of Vocational Behavior, 81: 307–321.

Wille, B., & De Fruyt, F. 2014. Vocations as a source of identity: Reciprocal relations between Big Five per- sonality traits and RIASEC characteristics over 15 years. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99: 262–281.

Wilson, T. D. 2011. Redirect: The surprising new science of psychological change. New York, NY: Little, Brown.

Winter, D. A., & Reed, N. (Eds.). 2015. The Wiley hand- book of personal construct psychology. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Winter, D. G. 2011. Philosopher-king or polarizing politi- cian? A personality profile of Barack Obama. Political Psychology, 32: 1059–1081.

Wu, C. H. 2016. Personality change via work: A job demand- control model of Big Five personality changes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 92: 157–166.

Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. 2012. Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal char- acteristics can be developed. Educational Psycholo- gist, 47: 302–314.

Yeager, D. S., & Walton, G. M. 2011. Social-psychological interventions in education: They’re not magic. Re- view of Educational Research, 81: 267–301.

Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. 2007. Positive organizational behaviorintheworkplace:Theimpactofhope,optimism, and resilience. Journal of Management, 33: 774–800.

Zaccaro, S. J. 2007. Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist, 62: 6–16.

Zimmermann, R. D. 2008. Understanding the impact of personality traits on individuals’ turnover decisions: A meta-analytic path model. Personnel Psychology, 61: 309–348.

Zimmermann, J., & Neyer, F. J. 2013. Do we become a dif- ferent person when hitting the road? Personality de- velopment of sojourners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105: 515–530.

Zuroff, D. C. 1986. Was Gordon Allport a trait theorist? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 993–1000.

Stefano Tasselli (tasselli@rsm.nl) is an Assistant Professor at the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus Uni- versity. He received his PhD from the University of Cambridge. His research interests include the micro- foundations of organizational social networks, and orga- nizational theory. Specifically, his research focuses on the interplay between characteristics of individual actors (personality, motivation, and cognition) and network structure in explaining outcomes of importance for in- dividuals and organizations.

Martin Kilduff (PhD Cornell, 1988) is Professor of Orga- nizational Behavior at the UCL School of Management and former editor of Academy of Management Review (2006–08). He previously held positions at INSEAD, Penn State, University of Texas at Austin, and Cambridge Uni- versity. His research focuses on the micro-foundations and consequences of individuals' social networks, with par- ticular emphasis on the role of personality, cognition, and emotion in these processes.

Blaine Landis (b.landis@ucl.ac.uk) is an Assistant Pro- fessor of Organizational Behavior at University College London. He received his PhD from the University of Cambridge. His research focuses on social networks, per- sonality, and interpersonal perception.

2018 493Tasselli, Kilduff, and Landis

Copyright of Academy of Management Annals is the property of Academy of Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.