Literature Review

The Effects of Work Environment on the Personality-Performance Relationship: An Exploratory Study

Author(s): James W. Westerman and Bret L. Simmons

Source: Journal of Managerial Issues , Summer 2007, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Summer 2007), pp. 288-305

Published by: Pittsburg State University

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40604568

REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40604568?seq=1&cid=pdf- reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms

Pittsburg State University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Managerial Issues

This content downloaded from ������������134.71.246.208 on Fri, 30 Oct 2020 01:13:26 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XIX Number 2 Summer 2007: 288-305

The Effects of Work Environment on the Personality- Performance Relationship: An Exploratory Study

James W. Westerman Associate Professor of Management Appalachian State University

Bret L. Simmons

Assistant Professor of Management University of Nevada, Reno

"When in Rome, live as the Romans do:

when elsewhere, live as they live elsewhere. " St. Ambrose (c. 339-97)

The advice, given by the Bishop of Milan to St. Augustine in the 4th Cen- tury, may seem an esoteric tangent to the issue of employee performance in organizations. However, as we try to refine our approach to understand- ing the relationships between individ- uals and their performance outcomes in organizations, the context of such interactions should not be underes-

timated. Although examination of di- rect linkages between employee per- sonality dimensions and performance outcomes is receiving increasing sup- port (Hurtz and Donovan, 2000; Mo- towidlo and Van Scotter, 1994; Van Scotter and Motowidlo, 1996), what remains less clear is the interaction

and influence of the context or place on this relationship. Are dimensions of personality directly responsible for employee success in organizations, or

do preferences employees have for factors in their work environment

play a more significant role in the re- lationship? Although selecting em- ployees on the basis of individual dis- positions may have a positive impact on employee attitudes and perform- ance, personality-based employee se- lection processes are notoriously in- accurate (Arthur et al, 2001). And considering the increasingly large spans of control and reduced contact between employees and managers in work situations (De Meuse et al, 2001; Henricks, 2001), an over-reliance on employee selection processes as a means of improving performance and commitment may be a less effec- tive approach than effectively man- aging work environments. In addi- tion, many managers do not have much flexibility in their staffing pat-

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XIX Number 2 Summer 2007

(288)

This content downloaded from ������������134.71.246.208 on Fri, 30 Oct 2020 01:13:26 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Effects of Work Environment 289

terns in the short-term, and managers must "deal with the hand they are dealt." In such situations, controlling the work environment is often the

most feasible short-term option, be- yond skill training, for improving out- comes.

The purpose of this study is to ex- amine the relationship between per- sonality, work environment prefer- ences, and the outcome variables, performance and commitment. We develop hypotheses for and test the model presented in Figure I. In de- veloping our model, we begin with a discussion of the relationship be- tween personality and performance, followed by a literature review of the relationships between Big Five per- sonality factors, work environment, and employee performance and com- mitment. We then develop and test hypotheses suggesting that the per- sonality-employee outcome relation- ship is mediated by work environ- ment preferences.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Personality, Work Environment, and Performance

According to Schneider (1987), "the people make the place," and people are differentially attracted to, differentially selected, and differen- tially leave organizations. Costa, Mc- Crae, and Holland (1984) assert that people begin this process by selecting into vocations that match their per- sonalities. Similarity between a job ap- plicant's values and the values of re- cruiters and employees within organizations has been shown to re- sult in improved work attitudes and increased performance after organi- zational entry (Judge and Cable, 1997; Chatman, 1991). Research by

Cable and Judge (1994) and Judge and Cable (1997) provides evidence that applicants pro-actively choose such organizational environments based on individual preferences, as they found that job candidates seek organizations with reward systems and cultures that fit their personali- ties. Of even greater significance is the possibility that the relationship between personality characteristics and specific work environments may influence performance (Hurtz and Donovan, 2000).

The general trend in the research has been towards increased optimism regarding the utility of personality tests in personnel selection with the goal of ultimately enhancing job per- formance (Behling, 1998; Hogan et al, 1996; Hurtz and Donovan, 2000; Mount and Barrick, 1995). The gen- eral consensus has been that person- ality holds utility as a predictor of job performance, specifically the consci- entiousness dimension (Behling, 1998). Research has also provided ev- idence of linkages between personal- ity dimensions with narrower facets of performance. Research by Motowidlo and Van Scotter (1994; Van Scotter and Motowidlo, 1996) suggests that personality has a larger impact on contextual (as opposed to task-ori- ented) dimensions of performance; specifically, extraversion and agreea- bleness were more strongly related to interpersonal facilitation. Hurtz and Donovan (2000) found that emo- tional stability and agreeableness were also significant predictors of in- terpersonal facilitation, and emo- tional stability was a predictor of task performance.

However, a number of different studies have begun to illustrate that the effects of personality on perform- ance may be more indirect than bi-

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XIX Number 2 Summer 2007

This content downloaded from ������������134.71.246.208 on Fri, 30 Oct 2020 01:13:26 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

290 Westerman and Simmons

I a

ä

CL,

i ã t 8

ill *!! ¡f i

i 1 I I

5 &

■a 6

li ¡ i «1 «g § 73 t3 8 o •§1 t3 fc u o ■> 3 « < I

1

Is - -S 1 sã II - i! 1 II S* s s "3

■a g s a

Ìli -S | ¡ 12

5

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XIX Number 2 Summer 2007

This content downloaded from ������������134.71.246.208 on Fri, 30 Oct 2020 01:13:26 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Effects of Work Environment 291

varíate. Recent research indicates the

intervening effects of performance expectancies, self-efficacy, and goal- setting on the relationship between conscientiousness and performance (Barrick et aL, 1993; Gellatly, 1996; Martocchio and Judge, 1997). These studies illuminate a significant gap in the literature - that the research to

date has disproportionately focused on the direct linkage between person- ality and performance, and ". . . if we are to truly understand the rela- tionship between personality and job performance, we must move beyond this bivariate relationship and toward specifying the intervening variables that link these domains" (Hurtz and Donovan, 2000: 877). Although spe- cific personality traits like conscien- tiousness (Behling, 1998) have been linked to a variety of employee out- comes, what remains unclear is the nature of the relationship between personality, work environment pref- erences, and such outcomes. It is pos- sible that personality is primarily ex- pressed in individual preferences for work environments, and that the di- rect effects of personality on work- place outcomes are fully or partially mediated by such preferences. Thus, we may find that specific work envi- ronment preferences may be more substantial predictors of employee outcomes in organizations than Big Five personality factors.

This study utilizes Barrick and Mount's (1991) Big Five factors of personality, and Moos' (1994) con- ceptualization of work environments as the theoretical bases for the con-

structs of personality and work envi- ronments. Barrick and Mount's

(1991) Big Five factors represent a widely accepted approach to concep- tualizing personality, as meta-analyses consistently support the construct va-

lidity of this approach (Mount and Barrick, 1995; Salgado, 1997; Tett et ai, 1991). The Big Five factors consist of an individual's openness to expe- rience (proactive seeking, toleration for and exploration of the unfamil- iar), conscientiousness (thorough ap- proach, hard-working, organized), extraversion (the need for stimula- tion, desire for activity levels with in- terpersonal interaction), agreeable- ness (cooperative nature, likeability) , and emotional stability (calm and se- cure, low in anxiety) . According to Moos (1981), work

environment preferences can be measured using three dimensions of work environment settings: system maintenance, goal orientation, and relationship dimensions. System maintenance refers to how orderly and organized the work setting is, how clear it is in its expectations, and how much control it maintains. Goal

orientation assesses the degree to which an environment encourages or stifles growth through providing for participation in decision making and autonomy, maintaining a task orien- tation, and providing job challenge and expectations for success and ac- complishment. The relationship di- mension measures the degree of in- terpersonal interaction in a work environment, such as the social com- munication exchanges and cohesion among workers, and the friendship and support provided by co-workers and management. These work envi- ronment preferences have been shown to affect individuals' personal functioning at work (Billings and Moos, 1982). Examination of work environment preferences can help identify organizational factors that may be problematic, and can guide interventions aimed at reducing em-

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XIX Number 2 Summer 2007

This content downloaded from ������������134.71.246.208 on Fri, 30 Oct 2020 01:13:26 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

292 Westerman and Simmons

ployee stress in a variety of work set- tings.

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

For the reasons which follow, we believe that the personality factors - conscientiousness, agreeableness, and extraversion - will work specifi- cally through goal orientation and re- lationship work environment prefer- ences on their way to influencing job performance and commitment. The personality factors openness to expe- rience and emotional stability will manifest themselves in relationship and system maintenance work envi- ronment preferences, and through their influence on such preferences will affect job performance and com- mitment.

Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Extraversion and Employee Performance

Conscientiousness is the personal- ity trait most strongly linked to per- formance outcomes. Two recent

meta-analyses provide strong linkages between conscientiousness and em-

ployee outcomes. Salgado (2003) found that, of the Big Five dimen- sions, conscientiousness was the strongest predictor of job perform- ance. Judge and Hies (2002) also found that conscientiousness was a

strong and consistent predictor of performance motivation. Conscien- tious individuals are more likely to be orderly and decisive, be autonomous in goal-setting behavior, show greater ability to cope with time management issues and stress, and generally strive for continuous performance im- provement (Judge and Hies, 2002; Thoreson et al, 2004). Conscientious- ness has been shown in individual

studies to predict performance in such diverse settings as student GPA (Nguyen et al, 2005), sales outcomes (Thoresen et al, 2004), and perform- ance in manufacturing teams (Mor- geson et al, 2005).

However, the potential influence of the mediating effects of work en- vironments on the conscientiousness-

performance relationship has been hinted at in several recent empirical studies. Research by Witt, Burke, Bar- rick, and Mount (2002) and Witt and Ferris (2003) found that low levels of social skill on the part of conscien- tious employees removed the signifi- cant relationship with performance. This result indicates the potential im- portance of the interpersonal inter- action-oriented relationship dimen- sion of work environments as a mediator in the conscientiousness-

performance relationship. The importance of the goal

achievement dimension and main-

taining a task orientation in work en- vironments on the conscientiousness-

performance relationship has been indicated in research by Stewart, Ful- mer, Barrick, and Hollenbeck (2005), whereby conscientious em- ployees were shown to focus on task role behavior in their pursuit of team performance outcomes. The relation- ship between conscientiousness and increased commitment also seems to

have a goal achievement mediator, as Moon (2001) found that conscien- tiousness operationalized through achievement-striving was associated with an escalation of commitment.

The relationship between the per- sonality dimension of agreeableness and performance has also received some recent support. Agreeableness may lead to enhanced customer con- tact and interactions, and improved relationships and communication

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XIX Number 2 Summer 2007

This content downloaded from ������������134.71.246.208 on Fri, 30 Oct 2020 01:13:26 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Effects of Work Environment 293

with managers. Agreeable employees may be viewed as more trustworthy, and as possessing higher levels of in- tegrity, which can aid them in cus- tomer relationships and in access to valued information (Costa and Mc- Crae, 1995; Sackett and DeVore, 2001). Hogan and Holland (2003) re- port the meta-analytic validity of agreeableness to specific job criteria performance outcomes to be signifi- cant (.34).

An employees' agreeableness rep- resents an interpersonal orientation of likeability and cooperativeness that would likely prefer environments with an emphasis on relationships. Nikolaou's (2003) study of 227 em- ployees indicated that agreeableness was related to performance in occu- pations that had high levels of inter- personal interaction in the work en- vironment, and Stevens and Ash (2001) found that agreeableness was related to an employee's preference for participative styles of manage- ment. The importance of relation- ship-oriented work environments has also been demonstrated by LePine and Van Dyne's (2001) research, whereby agreeableness was more strongly related to cooperative behav- ior than to task performance, and by Witt, Kacmar, Carlson, and Zivnuska (2002) whose results showed that the interaction between agreeableness and politics explained a significant amount of variance in contextual per- formance. Agreeableness has also been positively associated with em- ployee commitment, predicting ex- patriates' termination decisions (Cal- igiuri, 2000).

Extraversion, characterized by per- sonalities with a need for stimulation

and high externally-oriented activity levels, was found to be the most im- portant correlate of predicted job

performance of all the Big Five per- sonality dimensions in a study of man- agers from both the United States and Japan (Robie et al, 2005). The levels of assertiveness, positive emo- tionality, activity and sociability among extraverted employees can be beneficial in terms of performance outcomes. Further, extraverts are of- ten motivated by external rewards and recognition in the form of status and rewards at work that can lead to

improved performance outcomes (Barrick et aL, 2002). Hogan and Hol- land's (2003) meta-analysis sup- ported a relationship between extra- version and performance on specific job criteria of .35.

The work environment dimension

of goal achievement may play a sig- nificant mediating role in the rela- tionship between extraversion and employee outcomes. In examining the ratings of performance in a sales job, Barrick et al. (2002) found that an individual's striving for status and accomplishment mediated the extra- version-performance relationship. And Barry and Stewart (1997) noted that extraverts induce perceptions of their contributions to group out- comes by focusing on providing task- related inputs. Such task- and accom- plishment-oriented efforts indicate the importance to extraverts of goal achievement-oriented work environ- ments.

Extraverts also may seek out work environments with high levels of re- lationship orientation as a result of their craving for interpersonal inter- actions. Research by Van Vianen and De Dreu (2001) demonstrated that high levels of extraversion contrib- uted positively to social cohesion, and did not directly affect team perform- ance. Similarly, LePine and Van Dyne's (2001) results indicated a

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XIX Number 2 Summer 2007

This content downloaded from ������������134.71.246.208 on Fri, 30 Oct 2020 01:13:26 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

294 Westerman and Simmons

stronger relationship between extra- version and cooperative behavior than task performance. And the re- lationship between extraversion and employee commitment and intention to remain was indicated by Caligiuri (2000). In summary, our review of the liter-

ature suggests that the personality fac- tors conscientiousness, agreeableness, and extraversion manifest themselves

in preferences for goal- and relation- ship-oriented work environments, which in turn affect employee per- formance and commitment. As a re-

sult, we propose the following hypoth- esis:

HI: The significant, positive relationship between conscientiousness, agreeableness, and extraver- sion with employee performance and commitment will be partially mediated by work environment preferences for relationship and goal orientation.

Openness to Experience and Employee Performance

Openness to experience has been described as an employee's desire to be intellectually curious, imaginative, and open to possibilities. We often hear of business coveting employees who can " think outside the box" or

can adapt and change to solve com- plex problems in a continuously evolving work environment (Burke and Witt, 2002). It appears that the research on the openness to experi- ence-performance relationship has reinforced the idea that dynamic work environments in which learning and adaptation are required tend to enhance the openness-performance link. Bing and Lounsbury (2000) found that openness predicted vari- ance in job performance above and beyond all of the other dimensions of the Big Five. However, the sample consisted of employees in U.S. -based

Japanese manufacturing firms, of whom a large amount of employee training, adaptability, and change were required. Generally, the re- search indicates strong linkages be- tween openness to experience and enhanced performance in such learn- ing and adaptation-oriented environ- ments as decision making (LePine et aL, 2000; Colquitt et al, 2002) and training proficiency (Salgado, 1997). This may indicate a negative relation- ship with the mediating work envi- ronment dimension of system main- tenance, which emphasizes control, order, and organization. An impa- tience with highly structured systems among highly open employees was in- directly indicated in research by Kickul and Neuman (2000) who found that openness to experience was not directly related to perform- ance, but was predictive of emergent leadership behaviors in teams.

Employees with high levels of openness to experience may also ben- efit from highly relationship-oriented work environments, as Nikolaou (2003) found that openness to expe- rience was related to performance only for occupations involving higher levels of social interaction. The rela-

tionship between openness to expe- rience and employee commitment may also be mediated by relationship dimensions of work environments. In

a three-wave longitudinal study of em- ployees, openness was associated with higher levels of proactive socializa- tion behavior and relationship build- ing, which were related to employee commitment outcomes of turnover

intentions and actual turnover (Wan- berg and Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000).

H2: The significant relationship between open- ness to experience and employee performance and commitment will be partially mediated by work

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XIX Number 2 Summer 2007

This content downloaded from ������������134.71.246.208 on Fri, 30 Oct 2020 01:13:26 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Effects of Work Environment 295

environment preferences for higher levels of rela- tionship, and lower levels of system maintenance.

Emotional Stability and Employee Performance

People with high levels of neuroti- cism (representing the negative pole of emotional stability) have been de- scribed as depressed, insecure, and anxious. These are traits which would

not facilitate effective job perform- ance, and Barrick and Mount (1991) have argued that such individuals are often selected out of the labor pool altogether. It should not be surpris- ing that in the Judge and Hies (2002) meta-analysis, emotional stability was the strongest and most consistent cor- relate of performance motivation. A similar result was obtained in a meta-

analysis of European data (Salgado, 1997). Emotional stability has also been shown to positively and signifi- cantly predict academic performance (Nguyen et ai, 2005) and turnover in- tentions (Calighili, 2000). Further, a meta-analysis conducted by Frye (2001) suggests that neuroticism is the latent construct underlying lower levels of self-esteem, lower self-effi- cacy, an external locus of control, and lower job satisfaction.

The impact of emotional stability/ neuroticism seems to be related to

the ability to form and maintain pos- itive relationships in one's work en- vironment. Van Vianen and De Dreu

(2001) found that high levels of emo- tional stability contributed to social cohesion in teams, and high levels of neuroticism predict anger and ne- glect in relationships (Barta and Kiene, 2005). We hypothesize that the relationship between emotional stability and employee performance and commitment is mediated by the

relationship work environment di- mension.

H3: The significant, positive relationship between emotional stability and employee performance and commitment will be partially mediated by work environment preferences for relationship di- mensions.

METHODOLOGY

Sample

Subjects consisted of employees of eight different organizations, repre- senting financial analysts, direct-sales representatives, telemarketers, infor- mation systems specialists, customer service personnel, and stock clerks. The subjects were chosen using quota sampling, as every employee in the position analyzed within each organ- ization was included as a subject. All subjects were located in the western United States. A total of 115 subjects participated in the study, and a re- sponse rate of 92% yielded 106 usable responses. Of the subjects who re- sponded to the study, 56% were male, 86% Caucasian, 40% were married, and they possessed an average tenure of 2.88 years with the organization. A wide range of organizations and po- sitions were chosen by the authors to provide greater heterogeneity in both job context preferences and person- alities in the sample. All of the surveys were administered under the super- vision of the authors and completed by subjects while they were at work, which improved the response rate. Managers were provided a summary of the results of employee percep- tions of the work environment to en-

courage participation in the research.

Data Collection and Measures

The data collection procedure con- sisted of two surveys. The first survey

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XIX Number 2 Summer 2007

This content downloaded from ������������134.71.246.208 on Fri, 30 Oct 2020 01:13:26 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

296 Westerman and Simmons

was administered to the direct super- visor or manager of the employee to collect ratings of each subject em- ployee's performance. The perform- ance measure used was the Minne-

sota Satisfactoriness Survey (MSS) (Gibson et al, 1977). The strength of the MSS is its broad definition of per- formance, including assessments of the quality and quantity of an em- ployee's work, and their overall de- pendability and promotability. The twenty-eight item instrument asks managers to rate each employee's ef- forts and outcomes in comparison to the rest of the work group. Studies in- dicate that the reliability coefficients for the MSS range from .69 to .95, with a median of .87, and the MSS has demonstrated validity in longitudinal examinations of tenure and promo- tions across a variety of occupations (Gibson et al, 1977). The second survey, administered to

the employees, included three instru- ments. The first was the Work Envi-

ronment Scale (WES) (Moos, 1994), which was used to measure subjects' perceptions of their ideal work envi- ronment. The WES was chosen to

measure work environment prefer- ences as it utilizes a broad approach to defining work environments in three distinct dimensions: system maintenance (referring to how or- derly and organized the work setting is), goal orientation (the degree of job challenge and task orientation), and relationship dimensions (desired levels of social interaction, support and cohesion among workers). The WES has shown validity in predicting outcomes with employees in health care, military, and correctional facil- ity environments (Moos, 1994). The WES consists of ninety statements such as "The work is really challeng- ing" and "People take an interest in

each other," which subjects rate as ei- ther true or false in representing their work environment preferences. Reliabilities of the WES (using Cron- bach's Alpha) have varied from .69 to .83 on the various subscales (Moos, 1994).

The second instrument in the em-

ployee survey, the NEO-FFI Form S, represents the Big Five personality measure (Costa and McCrae, 1991). Validity of the NEO-FFI's five factors has been indicated across a large number of studies (Costa and Mc- Crae, 1995; McCrae and Costa, 1987). The third measure in the employee survey examined employee commit- ment. O'Reilly and Chatman's (1986) psychological attachment instrument was used, as it provides a parsimoni- ous measure of overall commitment

that has been effectively used in re- search linking individual preferences with organizational attitudinal out- comes.

RESULTS

The results of the data analyses pro- vide support for the importance of goal-orientation on the personality- performance relationship. Table 1 provides the means, standard devia- tions, and correlation matrix for the study variables. SPSS hierarchical/ stepwise multiple regression was used to test the hypotheses. The process for detecting mediated relationships in hierarchical regression recom- mended by Baron and Kenny (1986) was used to test the hypothesized re- lationships, including the role of me- diators, as specified in Figure I. As a result, our analytical approach pro- ceeded under an assumption of li- nearity of the relationships between the variables. Table 2 includes the re-

sults of the three regression models

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XIX Number 2 Summer 2007

This content downloaded from ������������134.71.246.208 on Fri, 30 Oct 2020 01:13:26 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Effects of Work Environment 297

that examined each of the three hy- potheses. The first model examined the relationship between the inde- pendent variables, the Big Five per- sonality dimensions, and the media- tors (the work environment preference dimensions of relation- ship, goal orientation, and system maintenance). A separate regression equation was used for each work en- vironment dimension. The second re-

gression model looked at the rela- tionships between the independent variables (the Big Five factors) and the outcome variables of employee performance and commitment. The third regression model examined the relationship between the Big Five in- dependent variables and the out- come variables of performance and commitment in the presence of the work environment mediating varia- bles.

The results of the first model re-

gressions indicated that three of the Big Five factors were significant pre- dictors of work environment prefer- ences (see Table 2). Extraversion, conscientiousness, and emotional sta- bility were all significant predictors of a goal orientation preference, and agreeableness was a significant pre- dictor of a preference for system maintenance. The second model re-

gressions indicated significant and positive relationships between two of the Big Five personality factors and the outcome variables. Conscien-

tiousness was a significant predictor of employee performance, and extra- version indicated a significant rela- tionship with employee commitment. In the third model, where both the personality and work environment di- mensions were included to assess me-

diating effects, the work environment dimension of goal orientation was the only variable that maintained a sig-

nificant relationship with employee performance and commitment. All of the personality dimensions were non- significant for both outcome varia- bles when the work environment

measures were included in the equa- tion.

The results of these analyses pro- vide partial support for hypotheses 1- 3. Although the system maintenance and relationship dimensions of work environments were not significant factors mediating the personality and performance/commitment relation- ships, goal orientation was a signifi- cant outcome of all three hypothe- sized personality dimensions (extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness). Goal orientation was also the only significant predictor of performance in the full (third) model, and fully mediated the effects of conscientiousness on perform- ance. In addition, the effects of extra- version on commitment were non-sig- nificant when the goal orientation dimension of work environments was

included in the analysis.

DISCUSSION

To more fully understand the de- gree to which the ' 'people make the place," this study examined the rela- tionship between individual person- ality, work environment preferences, and performance and commitment in organizations. The results suggest that a specific "place" variable - an employee's work environment pref- erence for goal orientation - plays a predominant role in performance and commitment outcomes. Goal ori-

entation fully mediated the signifi- cant direct relationship between con- scientiousness and performance, and the significant direct relationship be- tween extraversion and commitment

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XIX Number 2 Summer 2007

This content downloaded from ������������134.71.246.208 on Fri, 30 Oct 2020 01:13:26 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

298 Westerman and Simmons

I o U

§ «i

i tZì

•s

CA

ON 00 O

oo vo 1-H

* tt *

Tt co en

vo ^) <n Tt h rt ; »o »-h p

»O Tf Tf r^ ^t r-H <s -: -j ^ p

Tt 00 r- O <N O CN f) (S (N (S ^t h

* * * * *

t t °i ^ ^ 1 1

cN vo'or--vo»o^teooo r-HpO'-Hppp^H

******* *

en en es ^t es es cn p es

-.r-vocNvocncNOcn^cn Q en oq es r-; r^ en <n rt on r-#

OOCN^HONfNOfNiOTtm

^CNcnONcn^ooocnpcnON

,¡1 il ! 1 1 1 1 1 s i ¡ i wo<uwoáüwoiup

V

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XIX Number 2 Summer 2007

This content downloaded from ���������:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff on Thu, 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Effects of Work Environment 299

fi O

I 1 s

28

s I

•s s

|fi H W W s H W W

S 3

I 1 ¿S

£> .SP ^ O Os fSt-HO fi S CO *- < ^t OO OON"Ñf O -*-> * * ... •

S i3oo ovo »T)»or-r-Tí-

So .SP ^ OO OO N ON (S d

U 'S t - CNCN OcOOOOOTt 0> pQ ^h CN ^h en ^h O O ^

ö • o m r- o

g £ o i-; vq -h

§ ^ oo h h ^H r-

i J_Ífi_ÍÍ § ^ oo h h il «s s?

ï m ^ P ^ P ^ o h« on en ui vo r^ *h

Sa^^ti>o^noN o S g c/i ^3

1 5 Ö P p CN p S p h •^

S gjasasë = 3 ^ 13 -r;

2g2 co ci en en ^h io ^5^ o

"id c3OT-H^j"r-cn ^.<^ iä ^ pp ^ ^ ^ ^h p 2 en Ö

S" an Pu, -g c & I ? Õ

£ ¡îiïuf ¡111 i 5 Sâfe§ ¡111 5 JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XIX Number 2 Summer 2007

This content downloaded from ������������134.71.246.208 on Fri, 30 Oct 2020 01:13:26 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

300 Westerman and Simmons

was removed when preferences for goal-oriented work environments were included in the analyses. Agree- ableness was significantly related to both goal orientation and system maintenance, but these relationships did not translate into either perform- ance or commitment. Neither the

personality characteristics openness and emotional stability, nor the work environment preference for relation- ships had a significant effect on per- formance and commitment.

The results suggest that agreeable- ness, extraversion, and conscientious- ness may combine to form a prefer- ence for work environments that

offer high levels of goal orientation. Thus, the effect of personality on per- formance and commitment has a sit-

uational context; it does not occur in a vacuum. Challenging goals may communicate high levels of confi- dence in the abilities of employees and increase self-efficacy (and per- formance), and these positive feel- ings may also manifest themselves in enhanced employee commitment (Whittington et al, 2004). If manag- ers provide goal-oriented work envi- ronments to individuals with these

desirable personality characteristics, they should reap the benefits of en- hanced performance and commit- ment.

The ability to attract, keep, and mo- tivate high-performers is becoming increasingly important in today's competitive organizational environ- ments. The results of this study indi- cate that an over-reliance on em-

ployee selection processes may be misguided, and the development of goal-oriented work environments may be a more effective means of im- proving employee performance and commitment. This may be particu- larly relevant in work environments

where managers have very large spans of control which restrict them from

frequent and direct contact with em- ployees. Strickland and Galimba (2001) found that goals provide structure to ambiguous situations, re- ducing the effects of cognitive inter- ference on task performance. Work environments can provide social cues to organizational members on how to act appropriately, and employees tend to conform to such expectations to receive social approval from their peers (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978; Schneider, 1975). Thus, if a work en- vironment develops a strong goal ori- entation, employees are more likely to align their individual goal orien- tations with the norms of the work en-

vironment to maintain harmony with their surroundings (Neal et al, 2000). As climate scholars generally identify managers as the primary architects of group member climate perceptions (e.g., Naumann and Bennett, 2000), the results of our research indicate

the potential importance of leaders in focusing on the development of goal-oriented work environments to achieve enhanced performance and commitment. Whittington et al (2004) found that goal setting en- hanced the direct relationship be- tween transformational leadership and employee commitment and per- formance, and concluded that goal- oriented environments provide clari- fication, direction, focus, and longer-term perspective needed to translate transformational leadership effectively into performance. Future research could examine the specific influence of leaders in the form of be-

havioral modeling and leader-mem- ber exchange on the personality - work environment - performance relationship.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XIX Number 2 Summer 2007

This content downloaded from ������������134.71.246.208 on Fri, 30 Oct 2020 01:13:26 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Effects of Work Environment 301

The results of this study also have implications for managing employee attitudes. Given the consistency of employees' job attitudes, the signifi- cant relationship between goal-ori- ented work environments and com-

mitment enhances the argument that employers should do more to try to structure work environments in a pos- itive way so that work is a more satis- fying and rewarding experience. Al- though selecting employees on the basis of favorable and relatively stable individual dispositions may have a fa- vorable impact on employee attitudes and performance, work situations are within the control of most managers. Our research suggests that unfavora- ble work situations can directly im- pact employee performance regard- less of personality predispositions, whereas the development of suppor- tive work environments can have a di-

rect and positive affect on employees. Following the recommendations of research by Luthans and Sommer (2005) and Tata and Prasad (2004), future studies should examine the ef- fectiveness of human resource de-

partments functioning as strategic partners in creating performance-ori- ented work climates and team self-

management contexts to aid in the adaptation towards increasing worker autonomy and larger spans of control in contemporary work environments. Future research could also provide useful information regarding the role of personality and goal-setting work environments on a more comprehen- sive set of dependent variables that have been linked to personality, such as organizational citizenship behav- iors (Neuman and Kickul, 1998), sat- isfaction (Staw and Cohen-Charash, 2005), and turnover (Jenkins, 1993). It would be helpful to determine if the omission of potential mediators

or moderators of the relationships be- tween personality variables and em- ployee performance outcomes in past research has served to enhance the

importance of personality relative to contextually-oriented variables.

Potential limitations of this study include the relatively small sample size and the cross-sectional nature of

the data in this exploratory study. As a result, generalizeability of the re- sults may be limited. This research also relied on self-report surveys to measure employees' perceptions of their personality, commitment, and work environment preferences, which raises the potential for com- mon method variance. Although the performance outcome measure was collected from managers, future re- search could utilize multiple rating sources for many of the variables, such as using friends or co-workers to rate personality.

In summary, the primary contri- bution of this research was the ex-

amination of the unique variance contributed by personality and work environment preferences in deter- mining employee performance. The results of this study indicate that the relationship between personality, work environment, and employee outcomes is interrelated and in need

of further examination. The signifi- cance of employee goal-orientation preferences in fully mediating the re- lationship between personality and workplace outcomes provides further evidence to support the contention that the relationship between person- ality and performance may not be bi- variate, and that intervening variables play a substantial role. Future research should examine the dimensionality of both personality and outcomes in the workplace to understand the complex- ities of the relationship.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XIX Number 2 Summer 2007

This content downloaded from ������������134.71.246.208 on Fri, 30 Oct 2020 01:13:26 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

302 Westerman and Simmons

References

Arthur Jr., W., D. Woehr and W. Graziano. 2001. "Personality Testing in Em- ployment Settings." Personnel Review 30 (5/6): 657-676.

Baron, R. M. and D. A. Kenny. 1986. 'The Moderator-Mediator Variable Dis- tinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statisti- cal Considerations." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (6): 1173- 1182.

Barrick, M. R. and M. K. Mount. 1991. 'The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance: A Meta-analysis." Personnel Psychology 44: 1-26.

of Sales Representatives: Test of the Mediating Effects of Goal Setting. "Journal of Applied Psychology 78: 715-722.

ance: Test of the Mediating Effects of Motivation among Sales Representa- tives." Journal of Applied Psychology 87: 43-51.

Barry, B. and G. Stewart. 1997. "Composition, Process, and Performance in Self- managed Groups: The Role of Personality ." Journal oj 'Applied Psychology 82 (1): 62-78.

Barta, W. D. and S. M. Kiene. 2005. "Motivations for Infidelity in Heterosexual Dating Couples: The Roles of Gender, Personality Differences, and Socio- Sexual Orientation." Journal of Personality and Social Relationships 22 (3): 339- 360.

Behling, O. 1998. "Employee Selection: Will Intelligence and Conscientiousness Do the Job?" Academy of Management Executive 12: 77-86.

Billings, A.G. and R. H. Moos. 1982. "Work Stress and the Stress-buffering Roles of Work and Family Resources." Journal of Occupational Behavior 3: 215-232.

Bing, M. N. andj. W. Lounsbury. 2000. "Openness and Job Performance in U.S.- based Japanese Manufacturing Companies." Journal of Business and Psychology 14 (3): 515-523.

Burke, L. and L. Witt. 2002. "Moderators of the Openness to Experience-Per- formance Relationship." Journal of Managerial Psychology 17 (8): 712-722.

Cable, D. M. and T. A. Judge. 1994. "Pay Preferences and Job Search Decisions: A Person-Organization Fit Perspective." Personnel Psychology 47: 317-348.

Caligiuri, P. M. 2000. "The Big Five Personality Characteristics as Predictors of Expatriate's Desire to Terminate the Assignment and Supervisor-rated Per- formance." Personnel Psychology 53 (1): 67-88.

Chatman, J. A. 1991. "Matching People and Organizations: Selection and So- cialization in Public Accounting Firms. ' ' Administrative Science Quarterly 36: 459- 484.

Colquitt, J., J. LePine, J. Hollenbeck, D. Ilgen and L. Sheppard. 2002. "Com- puter-assisted Communication and Team Decision-making Performance: The Moderating Effect of Openness to Experience." Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (2): 402-410.

Costa, P. T., Jr. and R. R. McCrae. 1995. "Domains and Facets: Hierarchical Personality Assessment Using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. "Journal of Personality Assessment 64: 21-50.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XIX Number 2 Summer 2007

This content downloaded from ������������134.71.246.208 on Fri, 30 Oct 2020 01:13:26 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Effects of Work Environment 303

logical Assessment Resources.

in an Adult Sample." Journal of Applied Psychology 69: 390-400. De Meuse, K., T. Bergmann and S. Lester. 2001. "An Investigation of the Rela- tional Component of the Psychological Contract across Time, Generation, and Employment Status." Journal of Managerial Issues 13 (1): 102-118.

Frye, C. M. 2001. The Effect of Emotional Stability on Job Satisfaction: A Meta-analysis. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sci-

ences. June, 2001, Vol. 61 (11-A). Gellatly, I. R. 1996. "Conscientiousness and Task Performance: Test of a Cog-

nitive Process Model." Journal of Applied Psychology 81: 474-482. Gibson, D. L., D. J. Weiss, R. V. Dawis and L. H. Lofquist. 1977. "Manual for the

Minnesota Importance Questionnaire." Minnesota Studies in Vocational Reha- bilitation, XXVIII.

Henricks, M. 2001. "Span Control." Entrepreneur 29 (1): 97-98. Hogan, J. and B. Holland. 2003. "Using Theory to Evaluate Personality and Job-

Performance Relations: A Socioanalytic Perspective." Journal of Applied Psy- chology 88 (1): 100-112.

Hogan, R., J. Hogan and B. W. Roberts. 1996. "Personality Measurement and Employment Decisions: Questions and Answers." American Psychologist 51: 469- 477.

Hurtz, G. andj. Donovan. 2000. "Personality and Job Performance: The Big Five Revisited." Journal of Applied Psychology 85 (6): 869-879.

Jenkins, J. 1993. "Self-monitoring and Turnover: The Impact of Personality on Intent to Leave." Journal of Organizational Behavior 14 (1): 83-91.

Judge, T. A. and D. M. Cable. 1997. "Applicant Personality, Organizational Cul- ture, and Organization Attraction." Personnel Psychology 50: 359-394.

vation: A Meta-analytic Review." Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (4): 797-807. Kickul, J. and G. Neuman. 2000. "Emergent Leadership Behaviors: The Function of Personality and Cognitive Ability in Determining Teamwork Performance and KS As." Journal of Business and Psychology 15 (1): 27-51.

LePine, J., J. Colquitt and A. Erez. 2000. "Adaptability to Changing Task Con- texts: Effects of General Cognitive Ability, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience." Personnel Psychology 53 (3): 563-539.

Forms of Contextual Performance: Evidence of Differential Relationships with Big Five Personality Characteristics and Cognitive Ability." Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (2): 326-336.

Luthans, ÌL W. and S. M. Sommer. 2005. "The Impact of High Performance Work on Industry Level Outcomes." Journal of Managerial Issues 17 (3): 327- 345.

Martocchio, J. J. and T. A. Judge. 1997. "Relationship between Conscientiousness and Learning in Employee Training: Mediating Influences of Self-deception and Self-efficacy." Journal of Applied Psychology 82: 764-773.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XIX Number 2 Summer 2007

This content downloaded from ������������134.71.246.208 on Fri, 30 Oct 2020 01:13:26 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

304 Westerman and Simmons

McCrae, R. R. and P. T. Costa. 1987. "Validation of the Five-factor Model of Personality Across Instruments and Observers." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52: 81-90.

Moon, H. 2001. 'The Two Faces of Conscientiousness: Duty and Achievement- striving in Escalation of Commitment Dilemmas." Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (3): 533-540.

Moos, R. H. 1994. Work Environment Scale Manual (3rd Ed). Palo Alto, CA: Con- sulting Psychologists Press.

Psychologists Press. Morgeson, F., M. Reider and M. Campion. 2005. "Selecting Individuals in Team Settings: The Importance of Social Skills, Personality Characteristics, and Teamwork Knowledge." Personnel Psychology 58 (3): 583-611.

Motowidlo, S. J. and J. R. Van Scotter. 1994. "Evidence that Task Performance Should Be Distinguished from Contextual Performance." Journal of Applied Psychology 79: 475-480.

Mount, M. K. and M. R. Barrick. 1995. "The Big Five Personality Dimensions: Implications for Research and Practice in Human Resources Management." Chapter in Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 13. Eds. K. M. Rowland and G. Ferris. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 153-200.

Naumann, S. and N. Bennett. 2000. "A Case for Procedural Justice Climate: Development and Test of a Multilevel Model." Academy of Management Journal 43: 881-889.

Neal, A., M. Griffin and P. Hart. 2000. "The Impact of Organizational Climate on Safety Climate and Individual Behavior." Safety Science 34: 99-109.

Neuman, G. andj. Kickul. 1998. "Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: Achieve- ment Orientation and Personality." Journal of Business and Psychology 13 (2): 263-280.

Nguyen, N. T., L. C. Allen and K. Fraccastoro. 2005. "Personality Predicts Aca- demic Performance: Exploring the Moderating Role of Gender." Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 27 ( 1 ) : 105-1 16.

Nikolaou, I. 2003. "Fitting the Person to the Organization: Examining the Per- sonality-Job Performance Relationship from a New Perspective." Journal of Managerial Psychology 18 (7): 639-648.

O'Reilly, C. A. and J. Chatman. 1986. "Organizational Commitment and Psy- chological Attachment: The Effects of Compliance, Identification, and Inter- nalization on Pro-social Behavior." Journal of Applied Psychology 20: 241-254.

Robie, C, D. Brown and P. Bly. 2005. "The Big Five in the USA and Japan." Journal of Management Development 24 (8): 720-737.

Sackett, P. R. and C. J. DeVore. 2001. "Counterproductive Behaviors at Work." Chapter in Handbook of Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1. Eds. N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil and C. Viswesvaran. London, UK: Sage. pp. 145-164.

Salancik, G. R. andj. Pfeffer. 1978. "A Social Information Processing Approach to Job Attitudes and Task Design." Administrative Science Quarterly 23: 224-253.

Salgado, J. F. 2003. "Predicting Job Performance using FFM and Non-FFM Per- sonality Measures. "Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 76 (3): 323-346.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XIX Number 2 Summer 2007

This content downloaded from ������������134.71.246.208 on Fri, 30 Oct 2020 01:13:26 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Effects of Work Environment 305

the European Community." Journal of Applied Psychology 82: 30-43. Schneider, B. iy87. "The People Make the Place. Personnel Psychology 40: 437-

454.

479.

Staw, B. and Y. Cohen-Charash. 2005. "The Dispositional Approach to Job Sat- isfaction: More Than a Mirage, but not yet an Oasis." Journal of Organizational Behavior 26 (1): 59-78.

Stevens, C. and R. Ash. 2001. "Selecting Employees for Fit: Personality and Pre- ferred Managerial Style." Journal of Managerial Issues 13 (4): 500-517.

Stewart, G., I. Fulmer, M. Barnck and J. Hollenbeck. 2005. "An Exploration of Member Roles as a Multilevel Linking Mechanism for Individual Traits and Team Outcomes." Personnel Psychology 58 (2): 343-365.

Strickland, O.J. and M. Galimba. 2001. "Managing Time: The Effects of Personal Goal Setting on Resource Allocation Strategy and Task Performance." The Journal of Psychology 135 (4): 357-367.

Tata, J. and S. Prasad. 2004. "Team Self-management, Organizational Structure, and Judgments of Team Effectiveness." Journal of Managerial Issues 16 (2): 248- 265.

Tett, R. P., D. N.Jackson and M. Rothstein. 1991. "Personality Measures as Pre- dictors of Job Performance: A Meta-analytic Review." Personnel Psychology 44: 703-742.

Thoreson, C, J. Bradley, P. Bliese and D. Thoreson, 2004. "The Big Five Per- sonality Traits and Individual Job Performance Growth Trajectories in Main- tenance and Transitional Job Stages." Journal of Applied Psychology 89 (5): 835- 853.

Van Scotter, J. R. and S. J. Motowidlo. 1996. "Interpersonal Facilitation and Job Dedication as Separate Facets of Contextual Performance. "Journal of Applied Psychology 81: 525-531.

Van Vianen, A. and C. De Dreu. 2001. "Personality in Teams: Its Relationship to Social Cohesion, Task Cohesion, and Team Performance." European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 10 (2): 97-120.

Wanberg, C. and J. Kammeyer-Mueller. 2000. "Predictors and Outcomes of Proactivity in the Socialization Process." Journal of Applied Psychology 85 (3): 373-385.

WhittingtonJ., V. Goodwin and B. Murray. 2004. "Transformational Leadership, Goal Difficulty, and Job Design: Independent and Interactive Effects on Em- ployee Outcomes." Leadership Quarterly 15 (5): 593-606.

Witt, L., L. Burke, M. Barrick and M. Mount. 2002. "The Interactive Effects of Conscientiousness and Agreeableness on Job Performance. "Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (1): 164-169.

Performance Relationship: Convergent Results across Four Studies." Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5): 809-821.

Personality and Organizational Politics on Contextual Performance. "Journal of Organizational Behavior 23 (8): 911-927.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XIX Number 2 Summer 2007

This content downloaded from ������������134.71.246.208 on Fri, 30 Oct 2020 01:13:26 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms