DQ

Predicting Negotiation Performance from Personality Traits: A field Study across Multiple Occupations Sudeep Sharmaa, Hillary Anger Elfenbeinb, Jeff Fosterc, and William P. Bottomb

aDepartment of Management, University of Illinois at Springfield, Springfield, Illinois, United States; bOlin Business School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, United States; cResearch and Development, Hogan Assessments, Tulsa, Oklahoma, United States

ABSTRACT Based on decades-old reviews, many negotiation researchers have expressed doubts about the effect of personality on negotiation outcomes. More recent reviews have found significant associations between traits and outcome mea- sures. Existing research has primarily used laboratory experiments; field studies are rare. In this study, we aim to fill that important gap. Traits measured using the Hogan Personality Inventory were correlated with supervisor ratings of negotia- tion performance across three occupations: marketing managers, lawyers, and construction supervisors. Ambition and likability independently predicted greater negotiation performance. Results generalized across these three samples with evidence for an interaction effect in the lawyer sample. For attorneys, greater ambition was not additionally helpful for those who were relatively more likable. Results establish the importance of negotiation effectiveness as a distinct component of overall job performance. Practical implications are con- sidered in terms of division of labor, person–job fit, and the state-trait distinction.

Negotiation is an integral part of work life in business, government, and nonprofit organizations (Mintzberg, 1971; Morrill, 1995; Neustadt, 1960; Sayles, 1964; Shapira & Dunbar, 1980). Managers must allocate scarce resources such as money, time, and support from key stakeholders. The interests of labor, management, customers, suppliers, investors, and regulators rarely align per- fectly. As such, allocating resources requires negotiating compromises of various kinds with varying stakeholders. Organizations that can train and/or select better negotiators to handle these tasks should function more effectively. In this article, we address a long-standing observation by experts on negotiation, namely, the importance of personality traits for understanding effective practice (Des Callières, 1716/1983; Satow, 1917).

Despite this commonsense notion, systematic empirical research using rigorous scientific methods of hypothesis testing have led negotiations researchers to very different conclusions. Academic studies of the link between personality traits and negotiation outcomes first began in the late 1950s. These early studies used abstract laboratory protocols that differ greatly from the dynamic interpersonal process of real-world negotiation. Such research examined simple discrete choices in the prisoner’s dilemma and coordination games. An early narrative review of all this work concluded that the search for personality effects on negotiation was likely to prove fruitless (Rubin & Brown, 1975). More definitive pronouncements have followed since then, including large-scale reviews published in prestigious journals. Thompson (1990) concluded that “personality and individual differences appear to play a minimal role in determining

CONTACT Sudeep Sharma sshar5@uis.edu College of Business and Management, University of Illinois at Springfield, Springfield, IL 62703. Sharma, S., Elfenbein, H.A., Foster, J., & Bottom, W.P. (2018). Predicting Negotiation Performance from Personality Traits: A Field Study across Multiple Occupations. Human Performance. In press.

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here. Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/hhup. © 2018 Taylor & Francis

HUMAN PERFORMANCE 2018, VOL. 31, NO. 3, 145–164 https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2018.1481407

bargaining behavior” (p. 515), whereas Bazerman, Curhan, Moore, and Valley (2000) wrote that “simple individual differences offer limited potential for predicting negotiation outcomes” (p. 281).

Sharma, Bottom, and Elfenbein (2013) referred to this widely held conclusion as the irrelevance consensus—the oft-repeated conclusion that individual differences do not matter in negotiation. However, perhaps due to the same intuition shared by centuries of experts, some researchers have continued working on the topic. Quantitatively reviewing both the discrete choice studies and this relatively limited amount of work using complex negotiation simulations, Sharma et al. conducted a meta-analysis that revealed evidence of significant associations between core personality traits and various outcomes of interest.

Prior studies of the topic have drawn almost exclusively from experimental traditions in social psychology, using laboratory methods that necessarily stress certain aspects and phases of the negotiation process while controlling for or greatly curtailing others. We argue for the value of expanding this work by drawing from personality psychology to yield clearer insight into the role of enduring traits in negotiation. Using the laboratory maximizes control and precision of measurement, but it can obscure important aspects of the process as it actually unfolds in organiza- tional settings. Research on Person × Situation interactions in negotiation suggests that individual differences are also more likely to affect cognition and behavior in weak negotiation situations (those without clearly defined and established norms) than in strong negotiation situations (defined by strong beliefs and norms; De Dreu & Carnevale, 2003). Most negotiation studies are conducted in MBA classes, where there are strong (competitive) beliefs and norms associated with negotiation (De Dreu & McCusker, 1997; Kasser & Ahuvia, 2002). Such strong situations may be at least partly responsible for some null findings for main effects in research on personality and performance. This field research attempts to examine the main effects of personality traits across three occupations, rather than Person × Situation interactions or person–environment fit.

Workplace negotiations involve preparing, selecting a counterpart, initiating the process, imple- menting terms, and monitoring compliance. Reaching resolutions to everyday conflict, as well as perceived breaches in psychological contracts (Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1992), may require renegotiation and even engaging assistance from third parties. Field research methods from organi- zational psychology afford much less control than laboratory experiments but do provide a wider scope of analysis encompassing the various phases of workplace negotiations along with their dynamic interplay.

This article departs from past work in several respects. We present what appears to be the first research study modelling supervisor ratings of negotiation effectiveness as a criterion variable. Comprehensive search for the use of such ratings in the online databases such as PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Web of Science, Wiley Interscience, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and the Academy of Management Archive turned up no previous studies in negotiation research. As such, this study fills a notable gap in the published literature. In doing so, we argue that negotiation performance in organizations—like work performance more generally—is often best assessed by those who stand to benefit most directly from effective performance. As a second departure, we derive hypotheses grounded in interpersonal theory (Wiggins, 1979), an approach to personality that is closely connected with its inherently social aspects. This theoretical logic leads us to focus on specific associations involving the traits of ambition and likability. Next we detail these two departures and the hypotheses that emerge as a result.

A model of negotiation performance

The role of personality in negotiation effectiveness can be understood only within the broader context of workplace effectiveness. A long-standing stream of work has shown that personality measures consistently provide additional incremental predictive validity for job performance above and beyond general mental ability (Mount & Barrick, 1995; Ones, Viswesvaran, & Schmidt, 1993). Job performance tends to be higher for those who are conscientious, emotionally stable, agreeable,

146 S. SHARMA ET AL.

extraverted, and open to new experiences (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Mount, Barrick, & Stewart, 1998; Salgado, 1997). Extraversion facilitates most those jobs that require social interchange (Barrick & Mount, 1991), especially when coordinating work with teammates rather than serving in clearly defined roles such as customer service (Mount et al., 1998). In addressing the irrelevance consensus of personality in negotiation, we note that the field research findings on the Big Five personality traits have replicated across various job settings where negotiation skills are likely to be important, such as for managers, sales representatives, police officers, financial service managers, and many other jobs that involve extensive interpersonal interaction (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Barrick, Mount, & Strauss, 1993; Cortina, Doherty, Schmitt, Kaufman, & Smith, 1992; Mount et al., 1998; Salgado & Rumbo, 1997).

We argue that negotiation performance is an important component of job performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Campbell, 1990; Conway, 1999; Motowidlo, Borman, & Schmit, 1997; Murphy & Shiarella, 1997). Researchers have used rational synthesis methods, job analytic techniques, factor analysis, and organizational theories to identify distinct dimensions of job performance (Campbell, 1990; Lance, Teachout, & Donnelly, 1992; Viswesvaran, Ones, & Schmidt, 1996; Welbourne, Johnson, & Erez, 1998), with the goal to identify actions that incumbents must take on the job and that differentiate effective performers. Some performance dimensions have been classified as broadly applicable across all jobs, whereas others have been classified as important for specific occupations, such as managers versus entry-level positions (Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000). Performance models presume that the relevant domain focuses on actions and behaviors that contribute to organizational goal attainment and that vary meaningfully across individuals (Campbell, 1990; Motowidlo et al., 1997; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994).

In attempting to extend beyond the existing laboratory paradigm for studying negotiation perfor- mance, we stress the need to examine negotiation as a dimension of wider job performance. Organizational researchers have consistently characterized negotiation-related behaviors as critical activities for effective performance across a range of occupational positions (Thompson, 1990, 2005). Mintzberg (1971, 1973) identified negotiating as one of 10 crucial roles that managers play in their organizations. Mintzberg (1971) stated, “Negotiation is an integral part of managerial work . . . and the manager must participate in important negotiation sessions because he is his organization’s legal authority, its spokesman and its resource allocator” (p. B107). After observing production supervisors in action, Sayles (1964) concluded that “sophisticated managers place great stress on negotiations as a way of life. They negotiate with groups who are setting standards for their work, performing support activity for them, and to whom they wish to ‘sell’ their services” (p. 1311). Other empirical and ethnographic studies further substantiated the importance of the process across various occupations (e.g., Kurke & Aldrich, 1983; Morrill, 1995; Shapira & Dunbar, 1980).

Moving negotiation research into the field may yield new insight into individual differences. Laboratory designs can constrain negotiating in ways that obscure the impact of personality. The typical protocol relies on role-play simulations that create what Mischel (1977) deemed a “strong situation” in which individual differences have less latitude for expression, given that situational features constrain action. Traits may exhibit greater influence on negotiation behavior in workplace contexts where situations can be more flexible. Laboratory studies typically examine closed systems that treat the process as discrete events, separable from effects on the broader organization, that take place between parties who have established independent preferences (Bendersky & McGinn, 2010). Field studies enable examina- tion of more open systems features that treat negotiations as overlapping, recurrent, and recursive processes that involve the disposition of social, symbolic, and materialistic resources. Negotiations affect and are in turn affected by broader organization structures and systems between parties that are connected through personal and organizational relationships and social networks. Eliasbherg, Lillien, and Kim (1995) compared negotiation laboratory study attributes to case studies of marketing manager negotiations. Case analyses typically incorporated characteristics such as social relationships, expecta- tions of future interactions, credible threats, and time constraints—factors that were considered in fewer than 25% of the laboratory studies. The current study adopts this open systems perspective by examining

HUMAN PERFORMANCE 147

professionals who negotiate regularly on an ongoing basis in their daily work. We measure negotiation and work effectiveness through the informed perspectives of their supervisors.

Supervisor evaluations are also important because of their consequences for personnel evaluation. Accurate or not, these perceptions affect outcomes. They influence managers’ decisions about how to allocate responsibilities to negotiate on the organization’s behalf. Supervisors judge an individual’s competence as an input to significant job assignments, which in turn may determine future promotions, raises, and bonuses, along with intangible consequences in terms of esteem and self- efficacy. Those individuals considered to have the greatest potential often receive advanced training opportunities that further enhance their skills and overall value to the organization. Taken together, we argue for the value of bringing supervisor ratings into negotiations research, which this article does for what appears to be the first time.

Theory-based identification of traits

Central to the study of personality is the Big Five model of traits (Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1990; John, 1990), which includes Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience. The Big Five emerged over the last three decades as the dominant frame- work for researchers to organize and categorize various personality scales. This line of research began with extensive study of linguistic expressions people use to describe others (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The underlying factors generalize across measures, rating sources, and even cultures (John & Srivastava, 1999; McCrae & John, 1992). For these reasons, the Big Five provides the most widely accepted structure of personality for use in empirical research (Judge & Ilies, 2002) proving particularly useful for understanding personality–task performance relationships (Barrick & Mount, 1991).

The Big Five traits are high-level factors that map the universe of personal descriptions. However, each factor represents a composite of lower order facets that can be more specific to particular behavioral domains. Distinct facets of the broader factors may sometimes counteract one another because of countervailing behavioral mechanisms influencing outcome variables (Marinova, Moon, & Kamdar, 2013; Moon, 2001). Mershon and Gorsuch (1988) showed that the specific variance associated with individual facets might have predictive utility. As a step toward moving the negotiation literature forward with regard to the processes that link personality traits with negotia- tion outcomes, this study examines the predictive power of one particular trait, Extraversion, at a lower order facet level. In particular, we argue for the importance of examining separately the theoretically distinct dominance and affiliation related components of Extraversion.

In developing hypotheses to examine in this study, we start by noting the inherently relationship- oriented nature of negotiation. Interpersonal theory (Wiggins, 1979) provides a model that maps onto the Big Five while differing in the components that it emphasizes. According to this theory, the characteristics about how people relate to each other can be described in terms of just two dimensions, namely, dominance and affiliation (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2008; Kiesler, 1983, 1996; Kiesler, Schmidt, & Wagner, 1997; Wiggins, 1979). These two dimensions are theorized to create a two-dimensional space that encompasses the full range of interpersonal needs, problems, values, traits, and behaviors (Wiggins, 1979). The precise terminology varies across these models (e.g., Asch, 1946; Rosenberg, Nelson, & Vivekananthan, 1968; Wiggins, 1979) with the concepts of dominance and affiliation having appeared under labels such as agency and communion, competition and cooperation, competence and warmth, getting ahead and getting along, and status and love (Cuddy et al., 2008; Gurtman, 1992; Gurtman & Pincus, 2003; Hogan, 1983; Osgood, 1970; Wiggins, 1979)—in each case mapping onto the same underlying concepts.

The interpersonal theory has been linked both theoretically and empirically with the Big Five model. Components of Extraversion such as ambition align with the interpersonal trait of dom- inance (Hogan, 1996; Wiggins, 1996). Ambitious individuals are competitive and seek power, status, and control over resources (Hogan, 1996; Hogan & Holland, 2003). On the contrary, the other

148 S. SHARMA ET AL.

components of Extraversion such as likeability overlap with the interpersonal trait of affiliation (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Hogan, 1996; Wiggins, 1979; Wiggins & Trapnell, 1996). Likeable indivi- duals are friendly, caring, sensitive toward others, and easy to live with (Hogan & Hogan, 2007). This study separately examines the effect of ambition and likeability in predicting negotiation performance.

Interpersonal theory also aligns with a widely used framework for understanding negotiator motivation. According to dual concern theory, negotiators vary in how much they care about their counterpart’s interests and about their own interests (Blake & Mouton, 1964; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986; Rubin & Brown, 1975). These two interests map onto affiliation and dominance, respectively. Although dual concern theory has been primarily concerned with motives that vary across situations and counterparts, it also exhibits some chronic traitlike tendencies. In laboratory research, person- level concern for one’s own outcomes predicts better individual outcomes (Elfenbein, Curhan, Eisenkraft, Shirako, & Baccaro, 2008). But negotiations are generally not purely about the distribu- tion of benefit. Mutual gain, also called creating value or “integrative potential,” is generally possible to varying degrees in most social exchange contexts. Concern for others’ outcomes predicts joint outcomes in conditions that have integrative potential (De Dreu, Weingart, & Kwon, 2000).

Dominance Dominance reflects personal agency toward goal achievement. Dominant individuals tend to be ambitious and focused on accumulating resources, power, status, and control. Note that we are using the terms dominance and ambition interchangeably. Ambition as a construct was developed based on the socioanalytic perspective (Hogan, 1983, 1996), which itself is rooted in the interpersonal theory of personality (Hogan & Holland, 2003; Wiggins, 1979; Wiggins & Trapnell, 1996). Similar to dominance perspective, the getting ahead theme of socioanalytic theory proposes that ambitious individuals seek social position and status (Hogan, Hogan, & Roberts, 1996; Hogan & Shelton, 1998) while actively engaging in goal-directed behaviors (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012). They place great importance on advancing their own welfare, even at the potential expense of others (Roberts, O’Donnell, & Robins, 2004).

Ambitious negotiators are likely to approach interpersonal situations with a more competitive orientation enabling them to realize outcomes that enhance their individual welfare. Although circumstances vary, professional negotiations generally entail some degree of “integrative potential” enabling parties to formulate terms of agreement that generate at least some mutual gain. But even highly integrative negotiations entail distributive aspects (Bottom & Studt, 1993). Ambitious nego- tiators are likely to claim more value through distributive tactics such as making extreme offers, issuing threats, making positional commitments to stimulate concessions from counterparts, and exploiting a counterpart’s potential weakness (e.g., Sullivan, O’Connor, & Burris, 2006). In extant workplace settings, highly competitive behavior can sometimes prove counterproductive because visibly contentious behavior risks impasse and wider reputational problems (Tinsley, O’Connor, & Sullivan, 2002). To the extent that ambitious negotiators are aware of these consequences, they may seek to mask their competitiveness, stopping short of directly angering a counterpart in ways likely to come back to a supervisor while still employing arguments, pressure, and manipulation to secure their own interests.

H1: Ambition will be positively related to supervisors’ ratings of negotiation performance.

Affiliation Affiliation involves caring about other people’s needs. Individuals higher in affiliation tend to be cooperative, generous, loving, friendly, considerate, trusting, and kind (McAdams, Hoffman, Mansfield, & Day, 1996; Wiggins, 1991; Wiggins & Trapnell, 1996). Affiliation maps largely onto likeability dimension of personality traits, which involves being friendly and easy to live with, caring, sensitive toward others, sharing credits, and liking people (Hogan, 1996; Hogan & Hogan, 2007).

HUMAN PERFORMANCE 149

Likeability as a construct was developed based on the socioanalytic perspective (Hogan, 1983, 1996), which itself is rooted in the interpersonal theory of personality (Hogan & Holland, 2003; Wiggins, 1979; Wiggins & Trapnell, 1996). Similar to affiliation perspective, the getting along theme of socioanalytic theory proposes that likeable individuals place more importance on advancing other people’s welfare, even when it might come at the expense of their own (Hogan, 1996; Hogan & Holland, 2003; Roberts et al., 2004). As such, this trait has important implications for negotiation behavior, process, and outcomes.

Those who are more likeable in nature are likely to work more constructively with their counter- parts. Their spirit of concern toward others provides a foundation for healthy, long-term working relationships. They strengthen ties by interacting in a way that establishes the interpersonal basis for value creation through exchange over time. Because laboratory studies sharply curtail the often very wide temporal range of activities across phases in the negotiation process, likeability should have greater impact in field settings than past laboratory simulation research findings would suggest.

Negotiated agreements generally yield value to the parties over time as and to the extent that the terms are implemented. Postsettlement compliance with the commitments made in the agreement are likely to be greater with a well-liked, more affiliative counterpart, who might even have been purposefully selected over other potential counterparts before deal making had the chance to unfold (Mislin, Campagna, & Bottom, 2011). Supervisors in field settings have the ability to consider postsettlement compliance over time when they evaluate subordinates’ negotiation effectiveness— which is a key variable that laboratory outcomes typically do not measure. In terms of the theoretical mechanism, we argue that likable negotiators can achieve greater outcomes through their counter- parts’ perceptions of them. Likeable negotiators are likely to be perceived as more cooperative, sincere, and trustworthy; these perceptions should elicit favorable reactions from potential deal partners. It is more comfortable to establish ongoing collaboration with those seen as caring for their counterpart’s welfare.

The root of counterparts’ favorable perceptions is a visible difference in likeable negotiators’ behavior. They are likely to use more cooperative tactics including exchanging small talk, sharing information, reciprocating concessions, asking open-ended questions, and creating options for mutual gain. They tend to be more collaborative—listening to the other party and seeking to understand their perspective while attempting to build rapport. They will rely less on competi- tive tactics that can damage working relationships. Their positive relational behaviors can aid in problem solving, enhancing the discovery of trade-offs and hidden compatibilities that can create value. Because likeable negotiators value the other person, they are more likely to “separate the person from the problem” (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 2011, p. 11). This is a key factor in getting past negotiators’ stated positions to focus on deeper interests. Their counterparts are likely to reciprocate and share information about their own interests and preferences in return, establish- ing a positive spiral that facilitates the discovery of joint interests. These factors can lead to ratifying more deals, and on terms that are more advantageous for all involved. Supervisors should be able to observe the extent to which negotiators high in likeability tend over time to realize more valuable results from deal making. They will be more often sought out as partners, negotiate more creative agreements, and generally avoid contentious disputes over the imple- mentation of the terms. The present research makes an attempt to understand the effect of likability in predicting negotiation performance. Likeable individuals are sensitive and pleasant to other people and this corresponds with the affiliation dimension within the interpersonal theory (Hogan & Hogan, 2007; Wiggins, 1996).

H2: Likeability will be positively related to supervisors’ ratings of negotiation performance.

Interaction effects across traits Prior research on negotiator personality traits examined only main effects (Sharma et al., 2013). Interactions between traits in predicting negotiation outcomes have not been examined. Such an

150 S. SHARMA ET AL.

interactional approach in examining personality’s influence on work behavior has been called for periodically in the literature (Hogan et al., 1996; Konovsky & Organ, 1996). Moreover, personality researchers have cautioned researchers against examining personality constructs in isolation because the influence of one may depend on the pattern of others (Witt, Burke, Barrick, & Mount, 2002). We attempt to address this gap in the current study.

We hypothesize an interaction between ambition and likeability in predicting negotiation effec- tiveness. When individuals with dominance-related traits lack interpersonal warmth, they may achieve higher value in their deals, but with unintended consequences. Their profitable outcomes can come at the cost of subjective satisfaction for both parties, as well as lower joint value creation. We predict that these potentially damaging effects of ambition can be mitigated through greater likeability. Likeable negotiatiors should be able to reach agreements that create more mutual benefit while building positive social psychological outcomes such as trust. Negotiators who combine ambition and likeability will futher their substantive interests while establishing enduring relationships.

When ambitious individuals are also unfriendly and less sensitive toward others, they may act to further their interests but in ways that jeopardize the relationship. Those combining ambition and dislikeable may come across as unreasonable, micromanaging, demanding, inflexible, curt, and difficult in negotiation. So trait ambitiousness and likeability may interact in predicting negotiation outcomes. Those with more of both traits should garner much higher supervisor ratings of negotia- tion effectiveness.

Ambition may prove particularly helpful for those who are relatively less likable. Individuals who fail to develop strong interpersonal relationships may be able to compensate by pushing hard to secure interests through greater dominance. This may compose a different pathway to reaching favorable deals. Likewise, those who are likable with relatively low ambition may be able to compensate for the gap by developing strong interpersonal relationships, which could yield the positive negotiation outcomes that ambition would normally develop. In each of these cases, we predict that the two interpersonal dimensions of dominance and warmth can com- pensate for each other; that is, a potential downside due to one can be assuaged by high values of the other.

H3: There is an interaction effect between ambition and likeability such that the relationship between ambition and supervisors’ ratings of negotiation performance is stronger for individuals lower in likeability. Similarly, the relationship between likeability and supervisors’ ratings of negotiation performance is stronger for individuals lower in ambition.

Method

Participants

We analyzed samples of archival data on negotiator performance gathered by Hogan Assessments. These data were stripped of any individual respondent identifiers: marketing managers (Sample 1, n = 203), lawyers (Sample 2, n = 192), and construction supervisors (Sample 3, n = 96), for a total sample of 4911. Table 1 provides job role descriptions and descriptive statistics about participants.

These particular samples were selected from a larger database because negotiation skill was specifically noted by the firm as a critical component of the job descriptions based on discussion with the participant organizations. To provide clients with comprehensive measures of job perfor- mance, Hogan Assessments developed the Job Evaluation Tool (Hogan Assessment Systems, 2007) based on analysis of job descriptions, focus groups, and interviews with subject matter experts. From the Job Evaluation Tool’s large list of potential job criteria, human resource professionals from each client organization collaborate with Hogan to select the most relevant criteria.

HUMAN PERFORMANCE 151

Measures

Hogan personality inventory The Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI; Hogan & Hogan, 2007) represents a comprehensive model of personality traits. HPI has ambition and likeability as separate factors. Therefore, the HPI instrument is actually better suited to separately examine the theoretically distinct ambition and likeability construct. Ambition is a matter of being competitive, self-confident with other people, and energetic; it corresponds to dominance component, which is the first dimension within interpersonal theory. Likability is a matter of being sensitive and pleasant to other people; it corresponds with the affiliation dimension within interpersonal theory. Both ambition and likeability also largely converge with the Big Five framework (Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1993; Hogan & Hogan, 2007; Wiggins, 1996). Previous personality classifications concluded that the Hogan dimensions represent indices of the Big Five dimensions (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hogan & Holland, 2003; Judge, Rodell, Klinger, Simon, & Crawford, 2013). Published research (e.g., Huang, Ryan, Zabel, & Palmer, 2014; Smith & Ellingson, 2002) treats the HPI as measuring the Big Five in workplace settings.

Negotiation performance Negotiation performance was rated by direct supervisors in each sample. For the lawyers (Sample 2), two supervisors rated each employee, with interrater reliability for negotiation performance of .68. These values are comparable to typical values for job performance ratings (Viswesvaran et al., 1996). For the other two samples, each employee was rated by one supervisor. Slightly differing sets of items assessed negotiation performance in each sample: “[Employee name] effectively negotiates a resolu- tion to a conflict” (Samples 1–3), “[Employee name] knows when to be flexible during negotiation” (Samples 1–3), “[Employee name] can sell ideas” (Samples 1–3), “[Employee name] identifies and utilizes common goals during negotiations” (Samples 1 and 2), and “[Employee name] explores all alternatives to reach outcomes acceptable to all parties” (Samples 1 and 2). Items were averaged into a single variable separately for each sample. Coefficient alpha averaged .86 for these composite measures.

Table 1. Description and background information for three participant organizations.

Sample 1: Marketing Managersa Sample 2: Lawyersb

Sample 3: Construction Supervisorsc

Job roles Building client relationships that would lead to generating revenue for the business. Monitoring and analyzing market trends, identifying target markets and develop strategies to communicate with them, studying competitors’ products and services, and exploring ways of improving existing products and services.

Representing and advising clients in criminal and civil cases. Specialties included civil litigation and arbitration (n = 65), criminal (n = 17), intellectual property law (17), corporate law practices (14), and the remainder across real estate, matrimonial, probate and environmental law. Average work experience was 11.2 years, SD = 9.0.

Supervising onsite construction functions to ensure construction within design, budget and schedule. Investigating potentially serious situations, implementing corrective measures, representing the company in project meetings, and assisting management in labor strategy meetings.

U.S. location Midwestern Western Southwestern

Male 93% 43% 98% Age M 39.0 N/A 42.7

SD 9.3 N/A 8.4 Ethnicity Caucasian 79% 69% 96%

Black 0% 9% 1% Hispanic 21% 6% 2% Asian 0% 13% 0% Other 0% 4% 1%

Note. N/A indicates that information was not available for release by the participant organization. an = 203. bn = 192. cn = 96.

152 S. SHARMA ET AL.

These items emphasize a holistic view of negotiation performance. The questions in Hogan’s assessment provide a gestalt that takes the perspective of the supervisor who stands to benefit from effective negotiation performance by his or her subordinates. Beyond measuring the quantitative outcome with respect to one party, several of these questions refer explicitly to joint outcomes and to subjective components, for example, being flexible, addressing common goals, and reaching out- comes acceptable to all parties.

Results

Table 2 contains descriptive statistics for interpersonal personality traits and negotiation perfor- mance measures. Table 3, 4, and 5 present a correlation matrix of study variables for each sample. Greater ambition and greater likeability predicted better performance in the two largest samples (i.e., the marketing managers and lawyers). In Sample 3, with substantially fewer participants, similar trends appeared but did not reach statistical significance.

Given that all three samples were independent of one another, we conducted a meta-analysis2

(Hunter & Schmidt, 2004; Rosenthal, 1991) to test hypotheses more precisely and to make use of all the data. The meta-analysis allows the three samples to be examined together for the mean effect size of ambition and likeability. Table 6 provides a statistical summary of the predictive validity of ambition and likeability for negotiation performance. In support of H1 and H2, respectively, both ambition (M = .21, p < .01) and likeability (M = .18, p < .01) predicted greater negotiation

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for study measures across three participant organizations.

Sample 1: Marketing Managersa Sample 2: Lawyersb Sample 3: Construction Supervisorsc

M SD M SD M SD

Ambition 85% 14% 76% 17% 88% 13% Likability 82% 14% 81% 15% 83% 14% Negotiation performance 3.4 0.8 4.2 0.5 3.5 0.8

Note. Scale for personality traits was originally a sum of true–false responses, with the number of questionnaire items varying across traits. For illustration, values here are displayed as percentage endorsement. Negotiation performance on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

an = 203. bn = 192. cn = 96.

Table 3. Correlations among key study variables for marketing managers.

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Age 39.0 9.3 1.00 2. Male .93 .25 .15 1.00 3. Caucasian .79 .41 −.02 −.02 1.00 4. Ambition 24.8 4.1 −.20* .10 −.13 1.00 5. Likability 18.1 3.2 −.03 −.05 −.16* .32** 1.00 6. Negotiation performance 3.4 .78 .02 .11 −.05 .17* .17* 1.00

Note. n = 203. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01.

Table 4. Correlations among key study variables for lawyers.

M SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Male .43 .50 1.00 2. Caucasian .69 .46 −.10 1.00 3. Ambition 21.92 4.98 .09 .00 1.00 4. Likability 17.87 3.31 −.17** .04 .31** 1.00 5. Negotiation performance 4.23 .53 .03 .01 .31** .21** 1.00

Note. n = 192. **p ≤ .01.

HUMAN PERFORMANCE 153

performance. In addition to the average effect size, we first calculated the consistency of effects across studies, using the Q statistic of homogeneity (Hedges & Olkin, 1985; Rosenthal, 1991). The Q statistics were insignificant for both ambition and likeability. However, the Q statistic provides very limited information in the present meta-analysis due to the small number of studies. Therefore, we conducted the I2 index (Higgins & Thompson, 2002; Higgins, Thompson, Deeks, & Altman, 2003), and the H-statistics (Higgins & Thompson, 2002). The I2 index and H-statistics are specifically important measures of the impact of heterogeneity for this study as, from mathematical criteria, they are less independent on the number of studies than Q statistics (Higgins & Thompson, 2002). Although the inconsistency was moderate (I2 = 44%) for ambition, that was not significant with 95% uncertainty interval (0, 94.38%). The I2 index was 0% and insignificant for likeability. Similarly, the H-statistics were 1.36 and 1 for ambition and likeability, respectively. Insignificant heterogeneity for these effects suggest that the effects of ambition and likeability are consistent across the three samples.

In addition, we conducted multiple regressions with standardized personality traits, type of sample dummy coded, and the interaction terms of personality traits with type of sample to examine the consistency of the effects. Variance inflation factor values ranged from 1.05 to 1.22, with an average of 1.14, suggesting that multicollinearity was not a critical problem in the regression analyses. Table 7 reports the findings from the multiple regression analyses for ambition and likeability. After controlling for type of sample, both ambition and likeability proved to be a significant predictor of supervisory ratings of negotiation effectiveness (β = .18, p < .01, for ambition; β = .15, p < .01, for likeability). Insignificant interaction terms for ambition and likeability further illustrate the consistent effects of these traits across the three samples. The findings from the regression analyses provide additional support to the findings from the underpowered heterogeneity statistics in the meta-analysis.

Finally, we estimated a multigroup structural equation model3 with Mplus software (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017) to examine whether the effects of ambition and likeability are homogenous across all the three samples. To test for strong invariance across the three samples, the chi-square from a model with all parameters constrained to be equal across the samples was compared to the chi-square from a model with all parameters allowed to be unequal across samples. Table 8 reports the goodness-of-fit indices for each model. For ambition, the strong invariance model with loadings and the effect constrained to be equal across three samples had significantly similar fit indices as the model with parameters allowed to be unconstrained across the three samples (Δ comparative fit

Table 6. Statistical summary of correlation coefficients (r) of the interpersonal personality traits with negotiation performance.

Central Tendency of Effect Sizes Variability in Effect Sizes

Personality Traits k N M p 95% CI SD Qwithin p I 2 [95% Uncertainty Interval] H t2

Ambition 3 491 .21 < .01 [.13, .30] .11 3.70 ns 45.99% [0, 94.38%] 1.36 0.01 Likeability 3 491 .18 < .01 [.09, .26] .05 .55 ns 0% [0, 89.60%] 1 0

Note. CI = confidence interval.

Table 5. Correlations among key study variables for construction supervisors.

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Age 42.72 8.42 1.00 2. Male .98 .15 .08 1.00 3. Caucasian .96 .19 .02 −.04 1.00 4. Ambition 25.46 3.78 −.04 −.03 −.06 1.00 5. Likability 18.20 3.01 .03 −.08 .05 .37** 1.00 6. Negotiation performance 3.50 .84 .07 −.09 −.12 .10 .12 1.00

Note. n = 96. **p ≤ .01.

154 S. SHARMA ET AL.

index = .002, Δ root mean square error of approximation = .00, Δ standardized root mean square residual = .001). In this model, ambition was represented by six indicators and was used to predict negotiation effectiveness. Similarly, for likeability, the strong invariance model with loadings and the effect constrained to be equal across three samples had significantly similar fit indices as the model with all parameters allowed to vary across the three samples (Δ comparative fit index = .00, Δ root mean square error of approximation = −.01, Δ standardized root mean square residual = .00). In this model, likeability was represented by five indicators and was used to predict negotiation effective- ness. The fit statistics for both ambition and likeability indicate that constraining the parameters has little impact. The effects of these traits appear to be similar across the samples.

Additional latent moderated structural equations method (LMS; Klein & Moosbrugger, 2000; Klein, Moosbrugger, Schermelleh-Engel, & Frank, 1997) explored H3, related to the potential interaction effects between the two key personality traits, which could moderate each other’s influence. First, we compared the relative fit of the LMS model in which the interaction is not estimated with the alternative model in which the interaction is estimated. As suggested in previous

Table 7. Results of multiple regression models predicting negotiation performance from personality traits.

Ambition Likability

Predictors β t p β t p

Step 1 Ambition .18 4.42 < .01 Likability .15 3.75 < .01 Marketing dummy −.57 −12.92 < .01 −.52 −12.24 < .01 Construction dummy −.41 −9.34 < .01 −.37 −8.53 < .01 R2 .27 .26 Adjusted R2 .27 .26

Step 2 Ambition .18 4.30 < .01 Likability .14 3.55 < .01 Marketing dummy −.58 −12.83 < .01 −.52 −12.23 < .01 Construction dummy −.40 −8.39 < .01 −.36 −8.49 < .01 Interaction term with marketing dummy .01 .03 ns .02 .42 ns Interaction term with construction dummy −.03 −.55 ns .00 .00 ns R2 .27 .26 Adjusted R2 .27 .26 ΔR2 .00 .00

Table 8. Goodness-of-fit indices to examine invariance across three study samples for ambition and likeability.

Ambition Likeability

Fit Index Unconstrained

Model Constrained

Model Unconstrained

Model Constrained

Model

AIC 8797.88 8794.70 7236.08 7232.35 Loglikelihood value −4366.94 −4367.35 −3590.04 −3590.18 χ2 for model fit 239.46 240.28 69.46 69.74 Degree of freedom for model 52 54 35 37 χ2 for the baseline model 696.35 696.35 374.34 374.34 Degree of freedom for the baseline model 63 63 45 45 CFI .704 .706 .90 .90 TLI .64 .66 .87 .88 RMSEA [90% CI] .15 [.13, .17] .15 [.13, .17] .08 [.05, .11] .07 [.05, .10] SRMR .116 .117 .07 .07 Model comparison ΔAIC −3.18 −3.73 ΔCFI .00 .00 ΔRMSEA .00 −.01 ΔSRMR .00 .00

Note. AIC = Akaike information criterion; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CI = confidence interval; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual.

HUMAN PERFORMANCE 155

research on fit indices of LMS models, the relative fit was determined via a log-likelihood ratio test comparing the log-likelihood values of model without interaction terms and model with interaction terms (Klein & Moosbrugger, 2000; Maslowsky, Jager, & Hemken, 2015; Muthén, 2012). The log- likelihood values for both these models appear in Table 9. The results revealed that the more parsimonious model (i.e., model that does not estimate the interaction effect) represents a significant loss in fit relative to the model with interaction, Δχ2 (1) = 7.56, p < .01, for lawyers. Researchers found that if the model without interaction terms represents a significant loss in fit relative to the LMS model with the interaction, the LMS model with interaction term is a well-fitted model (Satorra, 2000; Satorra & Bentler, 2010), suggesting that the LMS model with the interaction terms is a well-fitted model for lawyers. The parsimonious model did not represent a significant loss in fit relative to the model with interaction for marketing managers, Δχ2 (1) = .02, ns, and for construction managers, Δχ2 (1) = .20, ns.

Results of the LMS model estimation showed a negative and significant interaction term for lawyers (β = −.27, SE = .16, p < .05). This effect is plotted in Figure 1 using Aiken and West (1991) method, with predictions for 1 standard deviation above and below the mean. The form of this interaction demonstrates what appears to be a compensation effect: The benefit of greater ambition is more pronounced for less likable lawyers. For less likable attorneys, greater ambition had a significant effect on negotiation perfor- mance (β = .42, p < .01). That effect was smaller and nonsignificant for more likeable negotiators (β = .12, ns). Likewise, for less ambitious participants, greater likeability had a significant effect on negotiation performance (β = .23, p < .05). The findings for lawyers suggest multiple pathways to achieving negotiation effectiveness. The interaction terms were not significant for marketing managers (β = .01, SE = .10, ns) and construction supervisors (β = .14, SE = .17, ns).

Figure 1. Interaction of ambition and likability in predicting negotiation performance for lawyers (N = 192).

Table 9. Fit statistics of LMS model without interaction terms and LMS model with interaction terms for three occupations.

Fit Statistics

Occupations

Marketing Lawyers Construction Supervisors

Loglikelihood value Model without interaction terms −2988.50 −3129.86 −1318.37 Model with interaction terms −2988.49 −3126.08 −1318.27 The test statistic for a log-likelihood ratio test D .02 7.56** .20 df 1 1 1

Note. The values of D are approximately distributed as χ2. **p ≤ .01.

156 S. SHARMA ET AL.

Discussion

This article examined the association between core personality traits and negotiation performance in a field context, using supervisor ratings of negotiator performance to do so. We believe that supervisors are properly positioned to obtain a wide range of relevant information about how their employees negotiate across particular occasions and over time. Their perspective would generally include information about deal-making communication that occurs across a real or metaphorical bargaining table. Laboratory experiments about negotiation focus entirely on this aspect of the process (e.g., Barry & Friedman, 1998; Bottom & Studt, 1993; Dimotakis, Conlon, & Ilies, 2012). However, workplace supervisors such as those in this study are privy to information about negotiator effectiveness extending well beyond the “experientially bracketed” (Barley, 1991, p. 168) behavior enacted during direct bargaining over terms. Over time they are likely to observe and learn about activities such as preparation, counterpart selection, implementation of terms, and monitoring of compliance. They can observe disputes arising over the implementation of an agreement that may necessitate renegotiation, mediation, litigation, and/or reparation. Variation in the conduct of critical processes like these should be reflected in supervisor ratings but typically eludes laboratory measures of performance (Bendersky & McGinn, 2010: Eliashberg, Lilien, & Kim, 1995). Supervisors can observe the long-term consequences of negotiation effectiveness, with gestalt judgments that incorporate factors beyond the deal terms of a one-shot interaction. They understand the suitability of settlements over the long term to meet the organization’s needs—a crucial criterion that organizational research must begin to acknowledge.

We found support for these hypotheses in a field study drawing data from three samples in intact workplace settings. These were diverse contexts in terms of industries and work roles, including lawyers, marketing managers, and construction supervisors. Ambition and likability both predicted better negotiator performance. Speaking to the potential generalizability, the findings of meta- analysis, multiple regression analysis, and multigroup structural equation modeling analysis illu- strated that the effects of ambition and likeability on negotiation performance were consistent, not differing significantly across these three settings.

The magnitude of effects was on par with those of large-scale reviews of validity coefficients for personality and job performance. Barrick and Mount (1991) reported observed correlations of Extraversion with job performance for managers and sales representatives at .11 and .09, respec- tively, which were similar to the effect sizes found in the current study.

We found further evidence for an interaction term that reflected a type of compensation effect for lawyers. Ambition was helpful for lawyers, but especially for those who were relatively less likable. Some individuals may achieve desired ends by developing strong interpersonal relationships with other people. However, those who do not develop these relationships may be able to compensate for the gap by pressing others harder in a given case. The interaction terms were not significant for marketing managers and construction managers, suggesting that job context may influence the nature of interaction effects between personality traits (Witt, Burke, Barrick, & Mount, 2002). This finding in a sample of lawyers suggests merit for further investigation of personality trait interaction effects in other job contexts.

The results highlight the importance of negotiation effectiveness within a broader model of job performance. Research on negotiation and job performance has mostly evolved apart. We argue that a comprehensive psychological theory of negotiation must consider personality traits and recognize this activity as one component of overall job performance.

In the case of negotiation, we argue that supervisor ratings have particular importance, beyond their validity as performance indicators. Even when supervisors do not have access to all relevant data, or when they may be biased in judgment, their evaluations will matter a great deal. Supervisors’ beliefs have tangible consequences regardless of accuracy. Given that supervisors tend to be responsible for assigning employees to roles, they are likely to base negotiation- intensive assignments on perceived performance and potential. These assignments, in turn, lead

HUMAN PERFORMANCE 157

to greater visibility and rewards, opening up potential opportunities for valued assignments in the future. Addition research will be needed to fully understand how supervisors and peers formulate these important judgments.

We argue that negotiator performance can be better understood through the lens of supervisors, peers, and all those who benefit most from effectiveness. This “stakeholder perspective” has been operationally defined in past job performance research through supervisor and peer ratings, which are measures used widely for other components of job performance (e.g., Cascio, 1991; Viswesvaran et al., 1996).

Limitations and future research

This study included only the supervisor perspective on negotiation effectiveness, which is a decision made by the participant organization and an inherent limitation of this archival research. Future research should examine the perspectives of other stakeholders to the negotiation context (e.g., supervisor, peer, and self-ratings).

Another limitation here was the measurement of negotiation effectiveness. The rating scale for negotiation effectiveness was based on the measure used in the participating consulting firm, which does not entirely map effectiveness in different negotiation processes such as distributive and integrative bargaining processes (Pruitt & Lewis, 1975; Walton & McKersie, 1965). Across these processes, work- place negotiations involve systems of negotiation activities such as preparation, selection of a counter- part, initiation of the process, bargaining, and implementation of terms. Effectiveness in all these activities are crucial for the success of any workplace negotiation. Therefore, we believe that negotiation effectiveness is a construct that is inherently multidimensional, and the field needs a multifactor model of negotiation performance that can examine effectiveness of an individual across these different negotia- tion processes. To our knowledge, there is no valid and reliable rating measure of negotiation effective- ness in the academic literature that can do so. Future research should make an attempt to develop and validate a 360-degree rating scale suitable for measuring the performance of individuals across the different negotiation processes while incorporating supervisors’, peers’, and other stakeholders’ perspec- tives on performance. As an additional limitation, we note that the archival data points were collected in one country and from specific occupations in specific industry segments only. Therefore, any strong claim regarding generalization of the results to other countries or occupations or industries should be made with caution. Future research should examine the predictability of ambition and likeability for negotiation effectiveness in other contexts.

Our findings from these three studies must be interpreted with caution. The Q Statistic can be a biased indicator of heterogeneity for a meta-analysis with k = 3. Monte Carlo studies indicate that the Q statistic has very limited power to detect heterogeneity among a small number of studies (e. g., Cornwell, 1993; Cornwell & Ladd, 1993; Hardy & Thompson, 1998; Harwell, 1997; Sánchez-Meca & Marín-Martínez, 1997). Higgins and Thompson (2002) derived the I2 index and H-statistics to provide tests that would be independent of the number of studies than Q statistics, and this research presented them as additional measures of the impact of heterogeneity for ambition and likeability. Based on further Monte Carlo studies, von Hippel (2015) recently concluded that the I2 index is indeed more informative than the Q statistic but also dependent on the number of samples. As he stated, “no statistic can change the limitations of small meta-analyses” (p. 43). We believe that the right solution of this is to have more field studies on the topic. With many more additional samples, the number of studies can yield a less biased test of heterogeneity for the examination of personality- negotiation performance relationship. This initial field study represents a useful beginning but we encourage more researchers to undertake the sampling of this nature in the field.

Because psychological research on negotiations has relied so extensively on experimental methods and measures from social psychology, it has benefitted less from the insights from complementary field research methods that are standard in industrial/organizational psychology. Laboratory research yields invaluable opportunities for controlled, precise, direct observations of behavior that can be incredibly difficult if not impossible to obtain in the field. However, these research designs cannot

158 S. SHARMA ET AL.

capture the context, contingencies, and wider chronology of actual workplace negotiation. Rating scales, which are extensively used in field research, have their own limitations. They can be plagued with both unintentional biases (e.g., halo, primacy, attribution) and intentional rater biases (e.g., leniency, central tendency). Biases and judgment error can introduce rating error in the evaluation of performance and can directly influence the accuracy of the ratings. For example, likeable employees might draw higher overall ratings from their supervisors due to such rater biases. However, empirical evidence suggests that ratee friendliness and likability has a small and insignificant effect on the performance ratings (Borman, White, & Dorsey, 1995). Researchers found that well-designed training programs for raters can address these rating biases, and they may increase the effectiveness of rating scales (Aguinis, 2013; Borman, 1997).

McGrath (1981) pointed out that each research methodology has strengths and weaknesses. For example, laboratory experiments contain superior precision of measurement and control of behavior variables, but they are low in contextual generalization. On the other hand, field studies are superior in contextual realism at the sacrifice of control and precision of measurement. We believe that both traditions yield important insights; they need to be in proper balance to enable accurate description and constructive prescription. Field research can capture a system character of context for negotia- tion that differs fundamentally from laboratory studies. The current skew away from field research limits out ability to fully understand the process. These concerns have been raised by others in the negotiations field, for example, Bendersky and McGinn’s (2010) arguments that the negotiations field should incorporate a greater influence of open system assumptions. Negotiations are not merely discrete events, primarily involving materialistic resources, separable from their effects on the broader organization, that take place between parties who have independent preferences and interests. They are embedded within larger systems and organizations, among counterparts con- nected with relationships in a larger social network. The three samples in the current study move us further toward an open systems approach, which is a fruitful direction for negotiations research.

Practical implications

Understanding the characteristics of effective negotiators has practical implications for negotiators and for human resource management. Early writing that helped to chill interest in studying individual differences argued that, even if there were positive findings, it would be unethical to put this knowledge to use because negotiators cannot do anything about their fixed characteristics (Bazerman & Carroll, 1987). We argue that there are actually three pathways for this knowledge to be used by individuals and the organizations for which they work.

The first pathway is through division of labor. Just as a wide range of job responsibilities are already divided among multiple employees in the workplace, negotiation roles can also be organized this way. Relatedly, the second pathway is person–job fit. The extensive literature on person– situation fit has been powerful in explaining how a person can fail in one job role but succeed in another (Kristof-Brown & Guay, 2011). People tend to be happiest in the kinds of situations that fit them (Diener, Larsen, & Emmons, 1984); negotiation should be no different. Indeed, Dimotakis et al. (2012) found that disagreeable people were more comfortable in strongly competitive situations, whereas agreeable people were more comfortable in situations with integrative potential. Note that the present study does not adopt a Person × Situation or person–environment fit perspective; rather, it attempted to examine the main effects of personality traits across three occupations. We note the feasibility of putting this practical recommendation in place, as many companies already administer personality inventories on a large scale and use these results for selection and training. The traits identified for negotiation effectiveness can serve to align talent better with tasks.

In formal training programs, instructors often provide feedback about strengths and weaknesses, which can enable negotiators to benefit from self-selection into appropriate roles. Just as individuals can try to self-select into situations they find comfortable, organizations can help to guide their fit through job placements. Crafting an effective fit into and out of negotiation-intensive roles depends

HUMAN PERFORMANCE 159

on awareness of the traits that are associated with performance. Ideally, jobs can be flexible in ways that allow people to volunteer or avoid negotiation-related tasks as appropriate. This can involve deferring specific work tasks to a colleague or agent who has a greater likelihood of negotiation success. Individuals may even seek out certain negotiation-intensive roles while avoiding others. Notably, individuals high in affiliation should seek interactions with long-term counterparts who rely on mutual compliance, whereas those high in dominance are more valuable in one-shot deals with terms that are easily implemented.

The third pathway for putting these findings to use is the state-trait distinction. The difference between states and traits has long been emphasized in personality psychology (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1987). Traits may be hard to change, but they are not destiny; we can change our behaviors from what is typical based on our default preferences when the stakes warrant it. Research findings on personality can be used to call attention to the particular situations when the natural tendencies associated with one’s traits may need to be managed. Awareness is the key to understanding when this could be necessary—with this awareness, negotiators may be able to change their behavior as needed, without undergoing a personality transformation.

Chipping away at the mystery

Although the negotiations field has found few replicable effects for core personality over the decades, the apparent mystery is starting to unravel. The confidence among many researchers that it is misguided to continue even searching for such effects has been referred to as an irrelevance consensus (Sharma et al., 2013)—with this term referring not only to the prediction of null effects but also the strength with which this prediction is believed. We argue that attempting to find these effects where they are most likely to live holds promise for new directions and a future body of work that may become increasing consistent and reliable. Kluger and Tikochinsky (2001) reviewed several areas within psychology where decades of empirical research failed to support commonsense hypotheses. In their examples, after researchers accepted the null hypothesis as true, new approaches in later decades supported the commonsense hypothesis after all. We argue that personality and negotiation may be another prime example of the danger of accepting the null hypothesis and look forward to new energy in overturning the irrelevance consensus.

Notes

1. The data set also included measures of negotiator effectiveness for samples of bankers, sheriff’s deputies, communication managers, and police supervisors. These samples, ranging from n = 23 to n = 61, were too small, so we focused analysis on the three largest samples.

2. We thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion. 3. We thank an anonymous reviewer for this recommendation.

Acknowledgments

We thank Robert Hogan and Benjamin Walsh for their comments on an early version of the manuscript. This article has benefited from feedback received during presentations made at SIOP 2016, ARP 2015, AOM 2014, and at a research workshop at Washington University in St. Louis. We are grateful to Associate Editor Sylvia Roch and our anonymous reviewers for their insightful suggestions during the editorial process. In addition to the review team, we also thank Linda Muthen and David Kenny for advice with data analysis.

References

Aguinis, H. (2013). Performance management (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

160 S. SHARMA ET AL.

Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 258–290. doi:10.1037/h0055756

Barley, S. R. (1991). Contextualizing conflict: Notes on the anthro- pology of disputes and negotiations. In M. H. Bazerman, R. J. Lewicki, & B. H. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 3, pp. 165–199). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. P. (1993). Conscientiousness and performance of sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 715–722. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.5.715

Barry, B., & Friedman, R. A. (1998). Bargainer characteristics in distributive and integrative negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 345–359. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.345

Bazerman, M. H., & Carroll, J. S. (1987). Negotiator cognition. Research in Organization Behavior, 9, 247–288. Bazerman, M. H., Curhan, J. R., Moore, D. A., & Valley, K. L. (2000). Negotiation. Annual Review of Psychology, 51,

279–314. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.279 Bendersky, C., & McGinn, K. L. (2010). Perspective-open to negotiation: Phenomenological assumptions and knowl-

edge dissemination. Organization Science, 21, 781–797. doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0487 Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing. Borman, W. C. (1997). 360 ratings: An analysis of assumptions and a research agenda for evaluating their validity.

Human Resource Management Review, 7, 299–315. doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(97)90010-3 Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual

performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71–98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Borman, W. C., White, L. A., & Dorsey, D. W. (1995). Effects of ratee task performance and interpersonal factors on supervisor and peer performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 168–177. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.168

Bottom, W. P., & Studt, A. (1993). Framing effects and the distributive aspect of integrative bargaining. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56, 459–474. doi:10.1006/obhd.1993.1064

Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial organizational psychology (Vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp. 687– 732). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Cascio, W. F. (1991). Applied psychology in personnel management (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Conway, J. M. (1999). Distinguishing contextual performance from task performance for managerial jobs. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 84, 3–13. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.3 Cornwell, J. M. (1993). Monte-Carlo comparisons of three tests for homogeneity of independent correlations.

Education Psychologist Measurement, 53, 605. doi:10.1177/0013164493053003003 Cornwell, J. M., & Ladd, R. T. (1993). Power and accuracy of the Schmidt and Hunter meta-analytic procedures.

Education Psychologist Measurement, 53, 877–895. doi:10.1177/0013164493053004002 Cortina, J. M., Doherty, M. L., Schmitt, N., Kaufman, G., & Smith, R. G. (1992). The “Big Five” personality factors in the IPI

and MMPI: Predictors of police performance. Personnel Psychology, 45, 119–140. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1992.tb00847.x Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality lnventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory

(NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception:

The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61–149. doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(07)00002-0

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Carnevale, P. J. (2003). Motivational bases of information processing and strategy in negotiation and social conflict. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 235–291.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & McCusker, C. (1997). Gain-loss frames in two person social dilemmas: A transformational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1093–1106.

De Dreu, C. K. W., Weingart, L. R., & Kwon, S. (2000). Influence of social motives on integrative negotiation: A meta-analytic review and test of two theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 889–905. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.889

Des Callières, F. (1716/1983). On the manner of negotiating with princes. New York: Holmes and Meier. Diener, E., Larsen, R., & Emmons, R. (1984). Person x situation interactions: Choice of situations and congruence

response models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 580–592. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.47.3.580 Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41,

417–440. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002221 Dimotakis, N., Conlon, D. E., & Ilies, R. (2012). The mind and heart (literally) of the negotiator: Personality and

contextual determinants of experiential reactions and economic outcomes in negotiation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 183–193. doi:10.1037/a0025706

Elfenbein, H. A., Curhan, J. R., Eisenkraft, N., Shirako, A., & Baccaro, L. (2008). Are some negotiators better than others? Individual differences in bargaining outcomes. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1463–1475. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.06.010

HUMAN PERFORMANCE 161

Eliashberg, J., Lilien, G. L., & Kim, N. (1995). Searching for generalizations in business marketing negotiations. Marketing Science, 14, G47–G60. doi:10.1287/mksc.14.3.g47

Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to YES: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216

Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26–34. doi:10.1037/ 0003-066x.48.1.26

Gurtman, M. B. (1992). Construct validity of interpersonal personality measures: The interpersonal circumplex as a nomological net. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 105–118. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.1.105

Gurtman, M. B., & Pincus, A. L. (2003). The circumplex model: Methods and research applications. In J. Schinka & W. Velicer (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology, Vol. 2: Research methods in psychology (pp. 407–428). New York, NY: Wiley.

Hardy, R. J., & Thompson, S. G. (1998). Detecting and describing heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 17, 841–856. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0258

Harwell, M. (1997). An empirical Study of Hedge’s homogeneity test. Psychological Methods, 2, 219–231. doi:10.1037/ 1082-989X.2.2.219

Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21,

1539–1558. doi:10.1002/sim.1186 Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses

British Medical Journal, 327, 557–560. Hogan Assessment Systems. (2007). The development of the Hogan competency model. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Press. Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job–Performance relations: A socioanalytic

perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 100–112. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.100 Hogan, R. (1983). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. M. Page (Ed.), 1982 nebraska symposium on motivation

(pp. 55–89). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Hogan, R. (1996). A socioanalytic perspective on the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of

personality (pp. 163–179). New York: Guilford Press. Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2007). Hogan personality inventory manual (3rd ed.). Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems. Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Personality measurement and employment decisions. American

Psychologist, 51, 469–477. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.51.5.469 Hogan, R. T., & Shelton, D. (1998). A socioanalytic perspective on job performance. Human Performance, 11, 129–144.

doi:10.1080/08959285.1998.9668028 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 Psychology, 99, 162–179. doi:10.1037/a0034285 Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. John, O. P. (1990). The “Big-Five” factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural language and in ques-

tionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality and research (pp. 66–100). New York, NY: Guilford Press. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives.

In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 102–138). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797–807. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.797

Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2012). On the value of aiming high: The causes and consequences of ambition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 758–775. doi:10.1037/a0028084

Judge, T. A., Rodell, J. B., Klinger, R. L., Simon, L. S., & Crawford, E. R. (2013). Hierarchical representations of the Five-Factor Model of personality in predicting job performance: Integrating three organizing frameworks with two theoretical perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 875–925. doi:10.1037/a0033901

Kasser, T., & Ahuvia, A. C. (2002). Materialistic values and well-being in business students. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 137–146.

Kiesler, D. J. (1983). The 1982 interpersonal circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions. Psychological Review, 90, 185–214. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.90.3.185

Kiesler, D. J. (1996). Contemporary interpersonal theory and research: Personality, psychopathology and psychotherapy. New York, NY: Wiley.

Kiesler, D. J., Schmidt, J. A., & Wagner, C. C. (1997). A circumplex inventory of impact messages: An operational bridge between emotional and interpersonal behavior. In R. Plutchik & H. R. Conte (Eds.), Circumplex models of personality and emotions (pp. 221–244). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Klein, A. & Moosbrugger, H. (2000). Maximum likelihood estimation of latent interaction effects with the LMS method. Psychometrika, 65, 457–474.

162 S. SHARMA ET AL.

Klein, A., Moosbrugger, H., Schermelleh-Engel, K., & Frank, D. (1997). A new approach to the estimation of latent interaction effects in structural equation models. In W. Bandilla & F. Faulbaum (Eds.), SoftStat ‘97 (Advances in Statistical Software 6, pp. 479–486). Stuttgart, Germany: Lucius & Lucius.

Kluger, A. N., & Tikochinsky, J. (2001). The error of accepting the “theoretical” null hypothesis: The rise, fall, and resurrection of commonsense hypotheses in psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 408–423. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.408

Konovsky, M. A., & Organ, D. W. (1996). Dispositional and contextual determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 253–266. doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-1379(199605)17:3<253::aid- job747>3.0.co;2-q

Kristof-Brown, A., & Guay, R. P. (2011). Person–Environment fit. APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 3–50. doi:10.1037/12171-001

Kurke, L., & Aldrich, H. (1983). Mintzberg was right! A replication and extension of the nature of managerial work. Management Science, 29, 975–984. doi:10.1287/mnsc.29.8.975

Lance, C. E., Teachout, M. S., & Donnelly, T. M. (1992). Specification of the criterion construct space: An application of hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 437–452. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.77.4.437

Marinova, S. V., Moon, H., & Kamdar, D. (2013). Getting ahead or getting along? The two-facet conceptualization of conscientiousness and leadership emergence. Organization Science, 24, 1257–1276. doi:10.1287/orsc.1120.0781

Maslowsky, J., Jager, J., & Hemken, D. (2015). Estimating and interpreting latent variable interactions: A tutorial for applying the latent moderated structural equations method. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 39, 87–96. doi:10.1177/0165025414552301

McAdams, D. P., Hoffman, B. J., Mansfield, E. D., & Day, R. (1996). Themes of agency and communion in significant autobiographical scenes. Journal of Personality, 64, 339–378. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00514.x

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 174–214. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x

McGrath, J. E. (1981). Dilemmatics: The study of research choices and dilemmas. American Behavioral Scientist, 25, 154–179. doi:10.1177/000276428102500205

Mershon, B., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1988). Number of factors in the personality sphere: Does increase in factors increase predictability of real-life criteria? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(4), 675–680. doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.55.4.675

Mintzberg, H. (1971). Managerial work: Analysis from observation. Management Science, 18, B97–B110. doi:10.1287/ mnsc.18.2.b97

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the

crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333–352). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mislin, A. A., Campagna, R. L., & Bottom, W. P. (2011). After the deal: Talk, trust building and the implementa-

tion of negotiated agreements. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(1), 55–68. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.01.002

Moon, H. (2001). The two faces of conscientiousness: Duty and achievement striving within escalation decision dilemmas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 533–540. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.535

Morrill, C. (1995). The executive way: Conflict management in corporations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual

performance. Human Performance, 10, 71–83. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1002_1 Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475–480. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.4.475 Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995). The Big Five personality dimensions: Implications for research and practice in

human resources management. In K. M. Rowland & G. Fen-Is (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 13, pp. 153–200). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L. (1998). Five-factor model of personality and performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions. Human Performance, 11, 145–165. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1102&3_3

Murphy, K. R., & Shiarella, A. H. (1997). Implications of the multidimensional nature of job performance for the validity of selection tests: Multivariate frameworks for studying test validity. Personnel Psychology, 50, 823–854. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb01484.x

Muthén, B. O. (2012). Latent variable interactions. Retrieved from http://www.statmodel.com/download/LV% 20Interaction.pdf

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide. Eighth edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. Neustadt, R. E. (1960). Presidential power: The politics of leadership. New York, NY: Wiley. Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Meta-analysis of integrity test validities. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 78, 679–703. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.679 Osgood, C. E. (1970). Speculation on the structure of interpersonal intentions. Behavioral Science, 15, 237–254.

doi:10.1002/bs.3830150305

HUMAN PERFORMANCE 163

Pruitt, D. G., & Lewis, S. A. (1975). Development of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 621–633. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.31.4.621

Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. New York: Random House. Roberts, B. W., O’Donnell, M., & Robins, R. W. (2004). Goal and personality development in emerging adulthood.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 541–550. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.4.541 Rosenberg, S., Nelson, C., & Vivekananthan, P. S. (1968). A multidimensional approach to the structure of personality

impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 283–294. doi:10.1037/h0026086 Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Rousseau, D. M., & McLean Parks, J. (1992). The contracts of individuals and organizations. In L. L. Cummings & B.

M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 15, pp. 1–47). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Rubin, J. Z., & Brown, B. R. (1975). The social psychology of bargaining and negotiation. New York, NY: Academic Press. Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European community. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 82, 36–43. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.30 Salgado, J. F., & Rumbo, A. (1997). Personality and job performance in financial managers. International Journal of

Selection and Assessment, 5, 91–100. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00049 Sánchez-Meca, J., & Marín-Martínez, F. (1997). Homogeneity tests in meta-analysis: A Monte Carlo comparison of

statistical power and Type I error. Quality & Quantity, 31, 385–399. doi:10.1023/A:1004298118485 Satorra, A. (2000). Scaled and adjusted restricted tests in multi-sample analysis of moment structures. In R. D. H.

Heijmans, D. S. G. Pollock, & A. Satorra (eds.), Innovations in multivariate statistical analysis. A festschrift for heinz neudecker (pp. 233–247). London, UK: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chisquare test statistic. Psychometrika, 75, 243–248. doi:10.1007/s11336-009-9135-y

Satow, E. (1917). A guide to diplomatic practice. London: Longmans, Green & Co. Sayles, L. (1964). Managerial behavior: Administration in complex enterprises. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Shapira, Z., & Dunbar, R. L. (1980). Testing Mintzberg’s managerial roles classification using an in-basket simulation.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 87–95. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.65.1.87 Sharma, S., Bottom, W. P., & Elfenbein, H. A. (2013). On the role of personality, cognitive ability, and emotional

intelligence in predicting negotiation outcomes: A meta-analysis. Organizational Psychology Review, 4, 293–336. doi:10.1177/2041386613505857

Smith, D., & Ellingson, J. E. (2002). Substance versus style: A new look at social desirability in motivating contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 211–219. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.211

Sullivan, B. A., O’Connor, K. M., & Burris, E. R. (2006). Negotiator confidence: The impact of self-efficacy on tactics and outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 567–581. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.09.006

Thompson, L. L. (1990). Negotiation behavior and outcomes, Empirical evidence and theoretical issues. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 515–532. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.515

Thompson, L. L. (2005). The mind and heart of the negotiator (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Tinsley, C. H., O’Connor, K. M., & Sullivan, B. A. (2002). Tough guys finish last: The perils of a distributive reputation.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 621–645. doi:10.1016/s0749-5978(02)00005-5 Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Perspectives on models of job performance. International Journal of Selection

and Assessment, 8, 216–226. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00151 Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D. S., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Comparative analysis of the reliability of job performance

ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 557–574. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.4.586 von Hippel, P. T. (2015). The heterogeneity statistic I2 can be biased in small meta analyses. BMC Medical Research

Methodology, 15, 35–43. doi:10.1186/s12874-015-0024-z Walton, R. E., & McKersie, R. B. (1965). A behavioral theory of labor negotiations: An analysis of a social interaction

system. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. (1998). The role-based performance scale: Validity analysis of a theory-

based measure. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 540–555. doi:10.2307/256941 Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395–412. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.3.395 Wiggins, J. S. (1991). Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates for the understanding and measurement of

interpersonal behavior. In W. M. Grove & D. Ciccetti (Eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology: Vol. 2. Personality and psychopathology (pp. 89–113). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Wiggins, J. S. (1996). The five factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. (1996). A dyadic interactional perspective on the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins

(Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 88–162). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Witt, L. A., Burke, L. A., Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2002). The interactive effects of conscientiousness and

agreeableness on job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 161–169. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.164

164 S. SHARMA ET AL.

Copyright of Human Performance is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd 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.