|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 PERSONALITY, SENSITIVITY AND SATISFACTION IN A NATURAL RESOURCE AGENCY: RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PERSONALITY, EQUITY PREFERENCE, SATISFACTION AND WORK -RELATED OUTCOMES By ANDREW WOOLUM A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011
2 2011 Andrew Woolum
3 To Loranne Ausley, patron of House Bill 1241
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank representatives of the Florida Park Se rvice, Mike Bullock, Scott Robinson and Jerri French, for supporting the proposed research proj ect. These individuals offered their personal support of research efforts and afforded unfettere d access to all data and resources necessary to accomplish the research-related goals and objecti ves. I thank committee members Taylor Stein, Amir Erez, Stephen Holland and Allen Long, fo r agreeing to serve as committee members and for providing personal and professional gui dance throughout this academic process.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................7 LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................9 ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... .............10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ ..12 2 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE FEASIBIL ITY OF PERSONALITY TRAITS AS A BASIS FOR PERSONNEL SELECTION DECISIONS .......................................................17 Background .................................................................................................................... .........17 Proxy of the Five Factor Model .......................................................................................18 Core Self ..........................................................................................................................19 Satisfaction .................................................................................................................. ....20 Equity Preference ............................................................................................................20 Survey Participation ........................................................................................................21 Outlier Inspection and Removal ......................................................................................21 Findings ...................................................................................................................... ............23 Comparison of FPS and Government Averages ..............................................................23 Personality and Satisfaction ............................................................................................24 Personality and Work Outcomes .....................................................................................25 Satisfaction and Work Outcomes ....................................................................................26 Regressions ................................................................................................................... ..........27 Personality Predicting Performance ................................................................................27 Personality Predicting Satisfaction ..................................................................................29 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... ..........29 3 A TEST OF WARMTH AND COMPETENCE IN AN ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT ....................................................................................................................... .......38 Equity Sensitivity ....................................................................................................................39 Core Self-Evaluations .............................................................................................................41 Method ........................................................................................................................ ............48 Setting, Participants, and Procedure ................................................................................48 Measures ...................................................................................................................... ....49 Results .....................................................................................................................................50 Discussion .................................................................................................................... ...........53 Limitations and Further Research ...........................................................................................54
6 4 THE PERSONALITY OF THE PARK R ANGER: AN EXAMINATION OF TRAITBASED RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN A NA TURAL RESOURCE RECREATION AGENCY ........................................................................................................................ ........61 Evolution of the Theories ..................................................................................................... ..62 Relationships of the Traits to Job satisfaction ........................................................................66 Relationships of the Traits to Work-related Outcomes ..........................................................67 Relationships of Job Satisfacti on to Work-related Outcomes ................................................68 Method ........................................................................................................................ ............69 Setting, articipants, and rocedure ................................................................................69 Measures ...................................................................................................................... ....70 Results .....................................................................................................................................72 Discussion .................................................................................................................... ...........74 Limitations and Future Research ............................................................................................78 5 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. ...82 APPENDIX A CORRELATIONS ................................................................................................................ ..87 B CRONBACH ALPHAS ..........................................................................................................94 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... ..........98 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................107
7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Outlier respondents based on standardized difference scores ............................................31 2-2 Comparison of organization averag es to national norms (Government) ...........................31 2-3 Pairwise correlations between personality and satisfaction ...............................................32 2-4 Pairwise correlations betw een select personality traits ......................................................32 2-5 Pairwise correlations between personality and work-related outcomes ............................33 2-6 Conscientiousness and tenure controlling for age effects ..................................................33 2-7 Pairwise correlations between satisfaction and work-related outcomes ............................34 2-8 Supervisor satisfacti on regressed on performance .............................................................35 2-9 Pay satisfaction and performan ce controlling for base pay effects ....................................35 2-10 Sick leave and satisfact ion controlling for age effects .......................................................36 2-11 Sick leave and performan ce controlling for age effects .....................................................36 2-12 Performance regressed on personality (linear) ..................................................................36 2-13 Performance regressed on personality (knotted spline) .....................................................37 2-14 Satisfaction regresse d on personality (linear) ....................................................................37 2-15 Satisfaction regressed on personality (knotted spline) .......................................................37 3-1 Means (M), standard deviations (S D), and intercorrelati ons among study variables (full sample) ................................................................................................................. ......56 3-2 Means (M), standard deviations (S D), and intercorrelati ons among study variables (paired matches) .................................................................................................................56 3-3 HLM coefficients and significance of performance (Model 1) and supervisor satisfaction (Model 2) ........................................................................................................ 57 4-1 Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and intercorrela tions among traits ........................79 4-2 Means (M), standard deviations (S D), and intercorrelations among satisfaction dimensions .................................................................................................................... .....79
8 4-3 Means (M), standard deviations (S D), and intercorrelati ons among work-related outcomes ...................................................................................................................... ......79 4-4 Correlations among traits and satisfaction dimensions ......................................................80 4-5 Correlations among traits and work-related outcomes ......................................................80 4-6 Correlations among satisfaction di mensions and work-related outcomes .........................81 A-1 Extended list of correlations ..............................................................................................87 B-1 Cronbach alphas of variables .............................................................................................94
9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Employee performance rating distributions .......................................................................37 3-1 Performance outcome of supe rvisor-subordinate core se lf trait interaction. .....................58 3-2 Performance outcome of supe rvisor-subordinate equity pr eference-core self trait interaction. .................................................................................................................. .......59 3-3 Satisfaction outcome of supe rvisor-subordinate equity pr eference-core self trait interaction. .................................................................................................................. .......60
10 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy PERSONALITY, SENSITIVITY AND SATISFACTION IN A NATURAL RESOURCE AGENCY: RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PERSONALITY, EQUITY PREFERENCE, SATISFACTION AND WORK -RELATED OUTCOMES By Andrew Woolum May 2011 Chair: Taylor Stein Major: Interdisciplinary Ecology The purpose of study 1 was to determine wh ether any organizational benefits might reasonably be obtained through the incorporation of personality assessment in the candidate recruitment and selection process. Findings were generally supportive of the utility of personality assessments as an applicant pre-screen and sele ction tool. Linear and kn otted-spline regression analyses indicated personality accounted for between r2 = .13 and r2 = .22 of the variance in performance ratings. Equity preference was found to be positively related to supervisor ratings of performance for the 3 consecutive years unde r investigation. Results were compiled and presented to the organization in th e form of a technical report. Study 2 examined whether an interpersona l judgment theory was affected by the introduction of status differentials in organizational settings. Using contextually relevant proxies of w armth and competence researchers modeled the affective outcomes of supervisor ratings of subordinate performance and subordinate superv isor satisfaction resulting from trait-based interpersonal interactions. Results indicated that th e respective levels of co re self-evaluations and equity preference influenced the affective outcomes arising from supervisor-subordinate interpersonal interactions.
11 In response to the growing inte rest in civil service and envi ronment-related work, study 3 examined relationships among personality, sati sfaction, and work-related outcomes within a governmental natural resource r ecreation agency. Researchers co mpared these findings with results obtained from other organizational cont exts. Findings suggest that while many of the relationships were of comparable magnitude to those demonstrated in recent meta-analyses, several displayed negative relations or more ge nerally, failed to meet the requisite level of statistical significance. Among the more surpri sing findings were cons cientiousness negative relationship with job tenure and extraversions lack of associa tion with performance and sick leave usage.
12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Although the natural resource recreation field ha s never suffered from a shortage of job applicants, the combination of renewed interest in government service and environmentalism has increased both the quantity and quality of those applicants. Despite the benefits of receiving greater numbers of more experien ced and better educated appli cants, the selection process has consequently grown more time consuming and cumbersome. Applicants with greater work experience or additional educati on require greater considerati on. In addition, it can often be difficult to conceptualize the translation of advanced education and work experience from unrelated fields to the roles a nd responsibilities associated with natural resource recreation. Because of the type and variety of responsibilities, there are fe w occupational surrogates to serve as contextually relevant proxies of positions wi thin the field. There is rarely a one to one translation that would provide evidence of the ca ndidates ability to adeq uately perform the job. The research is particularly timely. Two phenomena are currently underway. The first concerns organizations that ar e increasingly granting employees additional autonomy. Employee empowerment, task autonomy and workplace flexib ility all relate to the level of freedom an employee may exercise in the perf ormance of work. Collectively, these terms refer to the extent to which an employee is able to affect what work is to be done, when it is to be initiated, and how it is to be accomplished. As defined by Hack man and Oldham (1976), job autonomy is the degree to which the job provides substantial freedom, independence and discretion to the individual in scheduling the work and in determ ining the procedures to be used in carrying it out. Workplace trends indicate more US corpora tions are offering their employees greater autonomy. Current estimates are that at least 70% of US companie s have adopted some form of
13 employee empowerment (Spreitzer 2007). Of the Fortune 1000 companies, more than 90% afforded some form of employee participation or task autonomy (Lawler, Mohrman & Ledford, 1995). Employees with higher job autonomy are more likely to take work home with them (Schieman & Glavin, 2008). From 2003 to 2007, the percentage of time that management, professional and related occupations spent work ing from home increased from 10 to 13 % (US Department of Labor, 2009). These trends point to the fact that employees are granted more freedom and flexibility than ever before. In essence, employees have greater discretion in choosing their role in the workplace and how they contribute to organizational goals. Much of the research on job autonomy has focu sed on teams. This is not surprising since work teams have been the de facto corporate respons e to the changing nature of work. Although the focus on autonomy within and between teams has been reasonably jus tified, there exists a parallel line of research that has received considerably less a ttention. Employers are increasingly granting greater job autonomy at the individual level. Alt hough research in the area of individual-level autonomy has shown that increased employee aut onomy often results in tangible benefits to the organization including lower turnover intentions (T hompson & Prottas, 2005), reduced absenteeism (Spector, 1986), and highe r performance (Barrick & Mount, 1993), very little research has focused specifi cally on the outcomes of a workfor ce in which the vast majority of employees are provided with a high level of job autonomy. The following studies focus on the individual traits and preferen ces of workers belonging to a workforce with an unusually high level of job autonomy. The second phenomenon concerns an increasing interest in government employment and environmentalism. The appeal of government employment is on the rise (Clark, 2009). The recent economic downturn and general disenchantme nt with corporate America has led more job
14 seekers to turn their a ttention to the relative stability asso ciated with government work (Vogel, 2009). Coupled with this trend is an increasi ng concern for the environment and interest in environment-related work (Berger, 2009; Be rman, 2009). Within the environmental sector, government is one of the largest employers acco unting for over 60% of conservation scientists and foresters (Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2011) and 80% of forest and conservation workers (Occupational employment statistics, 2009). Personality assessments for the purpose of recruitment, selection and management of employees have been used by private and publicly traded corporations for many years. It is currently estimated that much as 75% of companies use, or are considering the use of, such testing procedures in their employee selec tion and development pr ocesses (Anderson, 2010). Despite the competitive advantages that such an approach affords, most governments have been slow to adopt similar practices. Perhaps owing to bureaucratic processes or the absence of a profit motive, most governments have failed to invest in research su rrounding associations within their own organizations, much less incorporate such find ings into their decision making processes. Government sponsored environmental work is unique. It is often more complex and demanding than the general public is aware. Within the natura l resource recreation field, an employees roles and responsibilities are often fluid and dependent on a number of factors including visitation patterns, se asonality, weather and an asso rtment of emergency-related situations that may arise duri ng the course of employment. Weekly work may range from cleaning bathrooms to fighting wildfires, from providing campfire programs to participating in search and rescue operations. Alt hough it would be convenient to re ly on prior findings from the field of industrial and organiza tional psychology during the recrui tment and selection process,
15 the unique nature of the work to which su ch findings would be applied makes such generalizations partic ularly problematic. As such, the purpose of these studies is to investigate the relations hips among personality, satisfaction and work-related ou tcomes within a governmental natural resource recreation agency. We examine three sets of relationships The first are those among personality and job satisfaction. We include the Five Factor model of personality, core self-evaluation and equity preference. The job satisfaction c onstruct includes 5 sepa rate satisfaction facets and an overall job in general measure. The second series of relati onships are among the listed personality dimensions and several work-related outcomes including performance, leave, tenure, gender and employment rank. Lastly, we examine relationships among satisfaction and the various workrelated outcomes. Chapter 2 was written as a technical paper deliv ered to the organization that served as the subject of investigation. The purpose of the paper was to determine whether the presumed relationships existed within the organizations work force, the strength of those relationships, and whether any benefits might be obtained through the incorporation of pe rsonality assessment during the candidate recruitment and selection process. The document was written for an audience without in-depth knowledge of statistica l techniques and processe s. As such, the paper contains greater descriptive information surroundi ng correlation and regression analyses. In sum, the report represents an attempt to offer scientifically defensible rationale on which to base preliminary employment decisions. Chapter 3 represents a specific test of a ge neral and ubiquitous theory of interpersonal judgments. The theory on which the paper is base d is the result of work by Fiske, Cuddy & Glick (2006). Their theory entails inte rpersonal judgments have evolutionary origins whereupon it was
16 once necessary to quickly deduce anothers intenti ons and ability to act on such intentions in order to ensure ones personal survival. The purpose of the research was to apply their theory to the modern organization and determine whether the outcomes they characterize are affected by the introduction of a status hierarchy a nd other organizational considerations. Chapter 4 is an exploratory examination of the interplay of personality, satisfaction, and work-related outcomes within a gove rnmental natural resource re creation agency. The purpose of the paper was to address the gr owing interest in governmental and environmental work and determine whether prior meta-analytic findings might be confidently applied to such an occupational field. This research project is uncommon for a number of reasons. To our knowledge, it represents the first time such cross-sectional data has been obtained from a natural resource management organization. It is the first time these separate instruments from the field of industrial and organizational psycho logy have measured individual-le vel traits and preferences as part of a single data collection campaign. It is the first time two of the traits have been shown to affect outcomes arising from interpersonal interactions. Although the research project was initially advanced to addre ss calls for further research by Yamaguchi, 2003; Williams, McDaniel & N guyen, 2006; and Williams, McDaniel & Ford, 2007, it became evident during analysis that more relevant and significant findings were present. As such, the character and direction of these research pursuits ch anged dramatically. It is hoped that these studies may, in some small part, add to the body of knowledge to which natural resource management organizations may refer during strategic planning and administration of employee recruitment, selection and management.
17 CHAPTER 2 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE FEASIBILITY OF PERSONALITY TRAITS AS A BASIS FOR PERSONNEL SELECTION DECISIONS The following research was conceived as a mean s to evaluate the utility of personality testing as it might relate to the Florida Park Services ongoing efforts surrounding the selection and management of its employees. It is based on data obtained in late fall of 2009. Self-reported data was obtained by way of an electronic surv ey. Survey data was then linked to human resources information drawn from the People First Database. Throughout the data compilation process, contro ls were put in place to protect anonymity and confidentiality. These controls included th e coding of People First employee numbers and the elimination of all salient identification data. These procedures were enacted prior to dataset linkage and the coding of survey set string values. Access to data was limited to researchers. The vast majority of reported statistics ar e correlations. Such methods are common to social science at large and especially th e field of industrial/ organizational psychology. Correlation analysis does not impl y causation. It merely indicates whether two variables tend to rise and fall together (positive relation) or act in an opposing manner where an increase in one variable is associated with a decrease in th e other (negative or inverse relation). Throughout the analysis, an alpha level of .05 was used. Although such a low alpha level is considered rather stringent for social science research, it prov ides greater certainty surrounding the confidence of findings. In laymens terms, it means that there is a 1 out of 20 chance that a significant finding is due solely to random variations in the da ta. Where confidence intervals are used, the .05 alpha level indicates that we are 95% confident that the true mean or correlation lies within the range of the interval.
18 Personality was examined from within the fr amework of the Five Factor Model (FFM) and core self. As measurements, their validity and reliability have been consistently confirmed1. The FFM instrument consisted of a 50-item questionnaire drawn from the International Personality Item Pool. A 12-item question set developed by Judge, Erez, Bono and Thoresen (2003) was used to capture the participants evaluation of core self. The Big Five Personality Traits or Five Factor Model (FFM), represents the evolution of findings by Tupes and Christal (1961), Norman (1963), Goldberg (1981), and Costa and McCrae (1985). Collectively, their research led to the de velopment of a personality model characterized by 5 factors---namely, extraversion, agreeableness conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to experience. Extraversion is typified by a desire for activ e social interaction. I ndividuals high in this trait exhibit increased tendencies to interact with others and often feel energized by such interactions. Agreeableness refers to an individua ls willingness to cooperate with others. Such willingness implies a high degree assumed trust and consideration of others feelings and desires. Conscientiousness manifests itself through characteri stics such as dependability, persistence, and organization. Individuals high in conscientiousness appear discip lined and achievement-oriented. Emotional Stability refers to an individuals ability to temper emotions. Individuals high in emotional stability display few outward expressi ons and are able to remain calm in difficult situations. Openness to Experience pertains to i ndividuals described as im aginative, intellectual and artistically sensitive (Mount, Barrick, Scullen & Rounds, 2005). I ndividuals high in this trait display heightened intellectualism and an acceptance of altern ate viewpoints. 1 Survey-specific Cronbach reliabilities may be found in Appendix B.
19 The FFM has been applied extensively within the fields of pers onnel and organizational psychology. Of primary interest to many researchers has been the st rength of correlations between the modeled personality tr aits and work-related outcomes2 such as job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Dudle y, Orvis, Lebiecki, & Cortina, 2006) and job satisfaction3 (Furnham, Petridesa, Jackson, & Cotter, 2002 ; Judge, Heller & Mount 2002; Shaw, Duffy, Jenkins & Gupta, 1999). The core self-evaluation concept was in troduced in 1997 as an outgrowth of the dispositional factors affecting job satisfaction (Judge, Locke & Durham, 1997). Borrowed from several fields, the construct repres ents a higher order trait rooted in self-esteem, generalized selfefficacy, neuroticism, and locus of control (Jud ge, Erez, Bono & Locke, 2005). Conceptually, the core self-evaluation is designed to provide rese archers with a glimpse into an individuals assessment of his or her basic ability, merit and efficacy as a person (Judge, et al., 2003). Core self has been shown to be related to job satisfaction (Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998), job performance (Judge, et al., 2003), ability to cope with organizational change (Judge, Thorensen, Pucik &Welbourne, 1999), and subjects attainment of more challenging jobs (Judge, Bono & Locke, 2000). 2 Employers understand such knowledge of personalitys relationships to work-related outcomes can offer the business a competitive advantage in terms of employee recruitment and selection, employee-organization fit, and person-job compatibility. 3 Past studies surrounding the FFM and job satisfaction have reached somewhat different conclusions. In a metaanalysis of their relationships (Judge, Heller, and Mount, 2002), personality and job satisfaction was shown to have a correlation of .41. That same year, a primary study concluded that either personality did not exhibit much of an effect or that those effects were inconsistent (Furnham, Petridesa, Jackson & Cotter, 2002).
20 Job satisfaction was measured in accordan ce with the hardcopy format of the Job Descriptive Index (Balzer, Kihm, Smith, Irwin, B achiochi, Robie, Sinar,& Parra, 2000). The Job Descriptive Index (JDI) is a 72 item survey instrument composed of 5 categories whereby participants rate whether or not specific term s or phrases describe th eir current job. Response options include yes, no and cannot decide. Categories include work, pay, opportunities for promotion, supervision and interper sonal interaction. It should be noted that the 1997 revision included a Job in General category (18 items). Equity sensitivity was meas ured using the 16-item Equity Preference Questionnaire (Sauley & Bedeian, 2000). This instrument repres ents the most recent development in equity sensitivity measurement. In addition, this in strument lacks many of the drawbacks commonly associated with the more popular Equity Sensitivity Instrument4. Equity sensitivity theory was proposed by Huseman, Hatfield and Miles (1985, 1987). Their studies led to the development of a classi fication structure whereby participants attitudes toward equity situations determined group divi sions and individual standing. Benevolent, Equity Sensitive and Entitled were the terms given to the th ree classes into which individual participants were grouped. Theoretically, the construct can be viewed as a spectrum with Benevolents on one end and Entitleds on the other. The theory holds that individuals exhibiti ng benevolent attitudes are less likely to feel uneasy in situations where they ar e under rewarded relative to their peers. Equity Sensitive individuals (representing the middleground) typically follow a norm of equity 4 Despite Equity Sensitivity Instruments continued use in research (Mintu-Wimsatt, 2003; Allen & White, 2002; Wheeler, 2002; Kickul & Lester, 2001), it remains samp le-specific (Foote & Harmon, 2005). Furthermore, the trichotomization of equity sensitivity results in a loss of measurement precision (Sualey & Bedeian, 2000).
21 whereby they experience the least discomfort wh en their outcomes are commensurate with their inputs. Lastly, Entitleds feel most at ease when th eir efforts are over rewarded relative to referent others. Overall, survey participation was judged to be satisfactory ( see appendices ). Of the 1060 full time employees, 437 completed the survey in its entirety for a response rate of 41%. Excluded and included classes completed the surv ey at the rates of 56% and 29% respectively. Although survey invitations specifi ed that only the responses of full time employees were of interest, 35 surveys were returned by part time employees representing 6% of the organizations part time workforce. Of the 437 completed surveys, 8 lacked information necessary to associate an employment status. Median survey completion time was 20 minutes 36 seconds. The sample obtained was judged to be suffici ently representative of the organizations workforce. There were no signifi cant differences between those who completed the survey and those who chose not to participat e in terms of age, gender, or sick leave. There were, however, statistically significant differen ces among tenure, base pay, annua l leave and performance rating. Interestingly, the direction and magnitude of th ese differences were reflected in participant comparisons between the excluded and included job classes. The apparent differences between survey participants and non-participants were therefore attributed to the disproportionate participation rate of the excluded class. Visual inspection of survey responses aler ted researchers to th e presence of unusual patterns of responses. Most eviden t were response sets composed entirely of the first or last available response option. Similarly, although less visually percepti ble, was the possibility that participants had selected response options rando mly. Because of the potential for such sets to
22 mute or distort underlying relationships, it was d eemed necessary to systematically identify and reconsider the validity of these sets prior to analysis. The first approach to outlier identification involved an examination of participant consistency within specific instrument dime nsions. This approach entailed separating and scoring each dimension of each instrument based on its forward and reverse coded questions. The difference between these uniformly coded s ubsets formed a dimensi on-specific participantlevel score. For survey instruments composed of multiple dimensions, dimension-level scores were totaled to produce an instrument-level scor e. These instrument-level scores were then standardized. Of the 437 completed surveys, 14 scores among 10 participants exceeded an arbitrary 3 SD from the mean and became the focus of further investigation (Table 2-1). Further investigation of these sets revealed gross inconsistencies commonly attributed to linguistic incompetence or inatte ntiveness on the part of the su rvey participant (Johnson, 2005). It was determined that the identified surveys would be treated as invalid and removed from statistical analysis. Alth ough this approach to response cons istency was deemed sufficient for detecting the more egregious inc onsistencies, there was a strong po ssibility that it would fail to detect a survey set composed of entirely random responses. In an effort to identify random response surveys, a modified version of Goldbergs method (Johnson, 2005) of calculating response consistency based on psychometric antonyms wa s investigated. The second method differed from the previous a pproach in that psychometric antonyms are not necessarily positively and negatively phrased statements about the same subject matter. Words and phrases may be from separate personality dimensions, or in this case, from entirely separate survey instruments. The rationale behind the use of such an approach, especially as it would apply to survey instruments composed of few dimensions, is that it generally affords more
23 points of comparison than would otherwise be obtained through reliance on dimension-specific divisions of forward and reverse coded questi on sets. Typically, the 30 strongest negative correlations from all intercorrelations fo rm the basis for calculating consistency. Of the 14,196 item intercorrelations, 30 pairs were identified as displaying the strongest inverse relationships. Despite ha ving included all item-level data the top 30 correlations were between only 5 dimensions. Moreover, 87% (26 out of 30) of the pairs were between just 2 dimensions, namely, core self and neuroticism. Although such findings can be traced to the zeroorder correlation between core self and neuroticism (r = -.69), it was surprising that, despite the inclusion of many interrelated items a broader scale of participan t consistency was not obtained. The resultant participant consis tency measure was judged to be inadequate for its intended purpose given its narrow focus on a fairly brief a nd preliminary section of the survey response set. Had the questions comprisi ng the negative correlations on which this method relies been randomly interspersed throughout the entire survey, a more ge neralized consistency measure might have been obtained. Although the possibility re mains that a survey set could be composed of entirely random responses, the limited number of outliers detected by the first approach provides evidence against any especially pervasive contamination of data. Furthermore, the issue of random responding is not especially problematic in that such data are more likely to generate a minor amount of statistical noise than alter any fundamental relationship. In comparing sample-specific satisfaction leve ls to government averages obtained over a 31 year period, one finds that th e organizations overall satisfaction ranking falls between the 61st and 67th percentile (Table 2-2). Promotion satis faction was the highest by comparison and ranged by class from the 71st percentile (included OPS) to the 83rd percentile (excluded).
24 Lowest on the list of satisfaction dimensions wa s pay satisfaction. Pay satisfaction averages by class ranged from the 27th percentile (Incl uded) to the 40th percentile (excluded). There were 22 statistically si gnificant correlations among 5 personality traits, equity preference and the six satisfacti on dimensions.(Table 2-3). The most ubiquitous of these traits were core self, neuroticism and agreeableness. Core self was unique in that it was broadly associated with all satisfaction dimensions and was the only trait related to pay satisfaction5. Additionally, core self exhibited the strongest as sociations with the satisfaction dimensions job in general, promotion, work and supervisor. Second to core self in terms of general strength of association and prevalence was neur oticism. Neuroticism was peculi ar in that it was associated with lower satisfaction ratings for the dimensions of job in general, promotion, work and supervisor. Agreeableness ranked third in terms of the extent of its satisfaction associations, but was the trait most strongly rela ted to people satisfaction. Finall y, it should be mentioned that both conscientiousness and equity preference displayed positive associations with the satisfaction dimensions job in general and work. In practical terms, insofar as the organizati on would rather hire individuals who are more likely to be satisfied with the nature of work particular to the field, focus should be placed on those individuals scoring higher in core self and agreeableness while avoiding those individuals scoring higher in neuroticism. From an effi ciency standpoint, it may be sufficient to test candidates on the traits of core self and agreeable ness. Both of these traits displayed a strong and significant negative correlation with neuroticism (Table 2-4). As such, individuals scoring high in core self and agreeableness would, by default, typically score low in the trait of neuroticism. 5 Controlling for base pay, the relationship between core se lf and pay satisfaction is reduced to r = .08, p = .096.
25 As for conscientiousness and equ ity preference, these traits were also significantly associated with core self, agreeableness and neuroticism. Although sole reliance on the dimensions of core self and agreeableness would likely capture the bulk of associations between personality and satisfaction, such an approach would naturally restrict the amount of available information on which to base decisions. Given the fact that the full personality battery including equity preference consisted of a total of 78 Likert scale questions, admini stration and scoring of such a set in its entirety is not deemed overly burdensome. There were 12 statistically si gnificant correlations among th ree personality variables, equity preference and four outcomes of interest (Table 2-5). Regarding performance, there were three personality variables posit ively associated with higher pe rformance ratings. The strongest of these three variables was equ ity preference. Interestingly, equ ity preference led the personality traits by a fairly wide margin and was the va riable most strongly associated with higher performance ratings for all three years. Conscientiousness and core self appeared to rotate in relative position but maintained positive and sim ilar strengths of association with performance for the two most recent years. Interestingly, extraversion displa yed a significant and inverse relationship with performance ratin gs from 2007. This was somewhat unusual in that prior metaanalyses have shown extraversion to be associated with higher performance ratings for servicerelated occupations (Barrick & Mount, 1991). The inverse relationship between consci entiousness and FPS tenure was somewhat difficult to interpret. It could either be the case that individuals high in conscientiousness typically leave the organization after a brief peri od of time or that recently hired individuals possess comparatively higher levels of conscientiousness than those with longer organizational tenure. In an effort to determine whether th e relationship between conscientiousness and FPS
26 tenure was spurious and dependent on the age variable, a partial correlation controlling for age6 was performed. Surprisingly, the partial correla tion revealed the relationship to have been suppressed by age (Table 2-6). The relationship remains unexplained. From a practical perspective, it would a ppear fundamentally advantageous to hire individuals with increased leve ls of equity preference, conscientiousness and core self. Individuals high in these traits are associated with higher perform ance ratings and at least one of which, core self, is associated with a reduction in the use of sick leave. Additionally, the fact that equity preference and core self are associated with higher base pay indicat es that individuals high in these traits typically advance to highe r paying positions within the organization. There were 26 statistically si gnificant relationships among six satisfaction dimensions and six outcomes of interest (Table 2-7). Of particular interest were the satisfaction dimensions associated with performance and sick leave. In terms of performance, supervisor and pay satisfaction displayed the most significant a nd widespread associations with increased performance. Although the relationship between s upervisor satisfaction and performance might be interpreted as individuals who receive high er performance ratings are, because of such ratings, generally more satisfied with their s upervisor, regression anal ysis indicated that performance ratings accounted for only 5 % of the variance in the supervisor satisfaction dimension (Table 2-8). Such low predictive power of the actual ratings received complicates the interpretation of the relationship between supervisor satisfaction and performance. The relationship between pay satisfaction and pe rformance was interpreted quite simply as those individuals who are higher performers t ypically receive greater pay. In examining the 6 Correlations between FPS tenure, age and conscientiousness were r= .457, p = <.0001 and r =. 103, p = .034, respectively.
27 relationship between base pay and performance, we found this to be true. As further support of such an interpretation, we found, after controlling for base pay, the relationship between pay satisfaction and performance dropped to almost zero and was statistically nonsignificant at the .05 level (Table 2-9). In examining the relationship between sa tisfaction and sick leave we found four dimensions significantly and negati vely related to the use of sick leave. Of these dimensions, work, promotion, and supervisor satisfaction were the strongest. Since the variable age was significantly associated with both sick leave and work satis faction, a partial correlation controlling for age was investigat ed. After removing age effects, we found all but one of the relationships between satisfac tion and sick leave to have increased in strength (Table 2-10). The relationship that did not increase was between sick leave and promotion satisfaction. This relationship suffered only a slight decrease in strength and significance. Although sick leave and performance ratings shared associations with the supervisor and job in general satisfaction dimensions, we found no significan t relationship between the use of sick leave and performance rating (Table 2-11). These regression summaries represent the performance-related predictive power of personality for each of the last three years (Tab le 2-12). On average, linear regression indicated that personality accounted for approximately 13 % of the variance in performance. Although the regression associated with the 2008 year lacked th e level of significance a ssociated with findings of adjoining years, it was included in the calcul ated average since it repr esented the midpoint in a string of successive years and re sulted in a more conservative ove rall estimate. Removal of the 2008 year increased the average predictive power of personality to just over 14 %.
28 In an effort to detect additional performance-related subtleties accounted for by personality, a second analytical technique, less bound by assu mptions of linearity, was investigated. Knotted spline re gression indicated that persona lity accounted for approximately 22 % of the variance in performance (Table 213). The knotted spline approach was of both greater strength and significance compared to the linear approac h. Although knotted spline analysis has sometimes been criticized for displa ying a tendency to over-fi t data, the sample size on which the present analysis was based provided sufficient reassurance that over-fitting was not a significant problem. Of the years under examination, the strongest, most significant effects were associated with the year 2007. Interestingly, such findings were followed by a steep drop in strength and significance the following year. Coincidently, th e performance ratings of 2008 represented the first employee performance data subsequent to th e adoption of an agency-wide initiative aimed at combating performance rating in flation. Most of the terms of th e initiative involved a general lowering and re-centering of average performan ce as well as the inclusion of an additional common performance criterion. Although the tran sition to the revised performance evaluation material was to have occurred uniformly within a specific time-frame, participation in the program was inevitably conditioned by the avoidance of a duplication of efforts. For example, if an employee had received an annual performance rating prior to the progr am transition period, it was often the case that the employee did not rece ive a revised rating merely for the purpose of program participation. Evidence of the use of tw o different rating scales can be found in the uniquely bimodal performance ra ting distribution of 2008 (Figure 2-1). The general lack of comparability brought about by the use of two separate performance scales led to an obfuscation of causal relationships and dimi nished statistical significance. In 2009, the predictive ability of
29 personality, as it relates to performance, began to make a return to 2007 levels. In examining the distribution of 2009, one finds the bimodal pattern of 2008 in retreat. This is evidence that the transition toward the new rating scale is underway and that the performa nce-related predictive power of personality is likely to trend upwards in the coming years. These regression summaries represent the satisfaction-related predictive power of personality (Tables 2-14 & 2-15) Unlike the regressions associ ated with personality and performance, the linear and knotted spline regres sions appear to share more similarities than differences. Although the knotted spli ne approach showed personality to have more predictive power than the linear analyses, such displays were also of lower statisti cal significance, but still well within the established alpha range of .05. One dimension wh ere neither linear nor knotted spline analysis appeared to detect any personality-related causal mechanism of satisfaction was pay satisfaction. The simplest and most straight forward interpretation of such finding is that regardless of whatever particular personality char acteristics an individual may possess, he or she is likely to be dissatisfied with pay. This wa s not an entirely unexpected finding given the variance in personality levels a nd lack thereof, in the pay sati sfaction dimension. Regardless of the peculiarity surrounding pay satisfaction, personality has been s hown to significantly predict a portion of satisfaction levels and especially the dimensions job in general and work satisfaction. For these latter dimensions, linear and knotted sp line analyses indicated personality accounted for between 19 and 26 % of th eir variance respectively. The previous analyses provide an indication of the relationships among personality, satisfaction and work-related outcomes. As originally conceived, such data was thought to be useful in circumstances when a hiring committ ee is forced to choose between two or more
30 candidates who, based on the committees limite d exposure and information on hand, appear essentially identical. It was intende d to provide a scientific and defe nsible rationale where, in the absence of additional information, a statistica lly justifiable consensus could be reached. Ideally, personality testing would be a part of the hiring process and the results of which, would be tracked over time. This would provide longitudinal da ta on which to base future decisions as well as substantiate and support the use of such da ta in the specific employment setting. Periodic professional satisfaction surveys would assist in the compilation of a similarly comprehensive dataset intended to afford opportunities to monito r changes in the referenced relationships and detect minute organizat ional climate shifts over time. These findings were provided as part of an investigational examination of the utility of personality testing as it might relate to the Florida Park Services ongoing efforts surrounding the selection and management of its employees. Although the relationshi ps described in this report are of considerable statistical significance and st rength, they are not of su ch sufficiency as to obsolesce personal experience or common sense. They are intended to augment the decisionmaking process and provide a platform on which to base decisions in situations whose outcomes may have otherwise been left to chance.
31 Table 2-1. Outlier respondents based on standardized difference scores Standardized Scores by Survey Instrument Five Factor Model p Core Self p Equity Preference p Job Descriptive Index p 8.77976979 <0.001 -3.28503 <0.001 -0.053628 -1.415693 -9.214761 <0.001 7.042737 <0.001 6.57457062 <0.001 8.20921839 <0.001 -0.600358 3.070517 0.001 1.12997893 -1.415693 0.73966029 0.687185 4.20735684 <0.001 -0.6892846 -0.0260644 0.687185 3.49719271 <0.001 0.82406628 0.6439447 0.157556 -4.0778914 <0.001 -0.4471484 -1.3660827 -0.9017 0.89325755 -3.0501119 0.001 0.35679793 -0.37207 -1.2372348 -3.4738501 <0.001 0.16536675 -1.96096 -1.0005135 -3.8975883 <0.001 -0.0260644 -1.69615 0.4198148 7.48280998 <0.001 Table 2-2. Comparison of organization averages to national norms (Government) Included OPS Included Excluded FTE Average Satisfaction Dimension Low High Low High Low High Low High Job in General 46 72 55 55 72 65 70 80 72 65 72 70 Pay 23 39 30 23 29 27 38 49 40 30 36 32 Promotion 62 80 71 77 83 81 81 87 83 81 83 82 Work 39 62 48 60 68 62 68 79 70 63 70 68 Supervisor 54 75 66 60 66 61 69 75 71 66 69 66 People 44 70 57 55 65 59 62 70 69 59 69 62 Overall 45 66 55 55 64 59 65 73 68 61 67 63 Notes. Data expressed as percentile; Confidence intervals = .05
32 Table 2-3. Pairwise correlations between personality and satisfaction Variable by Variable r N Lower 95% Upper 95% p Core self Job in General 0.3346 427 0.2475 0.4163 <.0001 Neuroticism Job in General -0.3085 427 -0.3919 -0.2201 <.0001 Agreeableness Job in General 0.2391 427 0.1476 0.3266 <.0001 Equity Preference Job in General 0.1723 427 0.0787 0.2629 0.0003 Conscientiousness Job in General 0.1638 427 0.0700 0.2547 0.0007 Core self Pay Satisfaction 0.1203 427 0.0257 0.2128 0.0128 Core self Promotion Satisfaction 0.2091 427 0.1165 0.2981 <.0001 Extraversion Promotion Satisfaction 0.1247 427 0.0302 0.2171 0.0099 Neuroticism Promotion Satisfaction -0.1243 427 -0.2167 -0.0298 0.0101 Agreeableness Promotion Satisfaction 0.1004 427 0.0055 0.1934 0.0382 Core self Work Satisfaction 0.3458 427 0.2594 0.4267 <.0001 Neuroticism Work Satisfaction -0 .3251 427 -0.4075 -0.2376 <.0001 Equity Preference Work Satisfaction 0.2281 427 0.1362 0.3162 <.0001 Conscientiousness Work Satisfaction 0.1769 427 0.0834 0.2673 0.0002 Extraversion Work Satisfaction 0.1367 427 0.0423 0.2286 0.0047 Agreeableness Work Satisfaction 0.1296 427 0.0351 0.2218 0.0073 Core self Supervisor Satisfaction 0.1532 427 0.0591 0.2445 0.0015 Agreeableness Supervisor Satisfaction 0.1404 427 0.0461 0.2322 0.0036 Neuroticism Supervisor Satisfaction -0.1072 427 -0.2000 -0.0124 0.0268 Agreeableness People Satisfaction 0.2405 427 0.1490 0.3279 <.0001 Neuroticism People Satisfaction -0 .1975 427 -0.2870 -0.1046 <.0001 Core self People Satisfaction 0.1783 427 0.0849 0.2687 0.0002 Table 2-4. Pairwise correlations between select personality traits r p Neuroticism Agreeableness -0. 4847 427 -0.5541 -0.4086 <.0001 Core self Agreeableness 0.3561 427 0.2703 0.4362 <.0001 Core self Neuroticism -0.6945 427 -0.7406 -0.6419 <.0001 Conscientiousness Core self 0.4860 427 0.4100 0.5553 <.0001 Conscientiousness Agreeableness 0.3636 427 0.2783 0.4432 <.0001 Conscientiousness Neuroticism -0.4570 427 -0.5289 -0.3785 <.0001 Equity Preference Core self 0.3528 427 0.2668 0.4332 <.0001 Equity Preference Agreeableness 0.3181 427 0.2302 0.4009 <.0001 Equity Preference Neuroticism -0.2557 427 -0.3423 -0.1648 <.0001
33 Table 2-5. Pairwise correlations betwee n personality and work-related outcomes Variable by Variable r N Lower 95% Upper 95% p Equity Preference Performance Rating 2009 0.1927 335 0.0874 0.2938 0.0004 Conscientiousness Performance Rating 2009 0.1414 335 0.0347 0.2448 0.0096 Core self Performance Rating 2009 0.1339 335 0.0271 0.2376 0.0142 Equity Preference Performance Rating 2008 0.2279 291 0.1160 0.3341 <.0001 Core self Performance Rating 2008 0.1398 291 0.0252 0.2507 0.0170 Conscientiousness Performance Rating 2008 0.1267 291 0.0119 0.2382 0.0307 Equity Preference Performance Rating 2007 0.2452 287 0.1332 0.3510 <.0001 Extraversion Performance Rating 2007 -0.1161 287 -0.2288 -0.0003 0.0494 Conscientiousness FPS Tenure -0. 1345 420 -0.2272 -0.0393 0.0058 Core self Sick Leave -0.1314 382 -0.2287 -0.0314 0.0102 Equity Preference Base Pay 0.1055 420 0.0099 0.1992 0.0307 Core self Base Pay 0.1052 420 0.0096 0.1989 0.0311 Table 2-6. Conscientiousness and tenure controlling for age effects Control Variables: Age Conscientiousness FPSTenure Conscientiousness Correlation 1.000 -.205 Significance (2tailed) .000 df 0 417 FPSTenure Correlation -.205 1.000 Significance (2tailed) .000 df 417 0
34 Table 2-7. Pairwise correlations between satisfaction and work-related outcomes Variable by Variable r N Lower 95% Upper 95% p Supervisor Satisfaction Performance Rating 2009 0.2099 335 0.1051 0.3100 0.0001 Work Satisfaction Performance Rating 2009 0.1746 335 0.0687 0.2765 0.0013 Pay Satisfaction Performance Rating 2009 0.1612 335 0.0550 0.2638 0.0031 Job in General Performance Rating 2009 0.1218 335 0.0149 0.2260 0.0258 People Satisfaction Performance Rating 2009 0.1095 335 0.0023 0.2141 0.0453 Supervisor Satisfaction Performance Rating 2008 0.2453 291 0.1341 0.3504 <.0001 Job in General Performance Rating 2008 0.1433 291 0.0287 0.2541 0.0144 Pay Satisfaction Performance Rating 2008 0.1309 291 0.0161 0.2422 0.0256 Supervisor Satisfaction Performance Rating 2007 0.2144 287 0.1011 0.3222 0.0003 Pay Satisfaction Performance Rating 2007 0.1617 287 0.0468 0.2724 0.0060 Work Satisfaction FPS Tenure 0.1588 420 0.0 641 0.2507 0.0011 Pay Satisfaction FPS Tenure 0. 1572 420 0.0625 0.2492 0.0012 People Satisfaction FPS Tenure 0.1186 420 0.0 232 0.2119 0.0150 Pay Satisfaction Annual Leave 0.1257 382 0.0257 0.2232 0.0140 Work Satisfaction Sick Leave -0.1974 382 -0.2919 -0.0990 0.0001 Promotion Satisfaction Sick Leave -0.1697 382 -0.2655 -0.0705 0.0009 Supervisor Satisfaction Sick Leave -0.1640 382 -0.2601 -0.0647 0.0013 Job in General Sick Leave -0.1369 382 -0.2341 -0.0371 0.0074 Pay Satisfaction Base Pay 0.4204 420 0.3383 0.4961 <.0001 Work Satisfaction Base Pay 0.2023 420 0.1087 0.2923 <.0001 People Satisfaction Base Pay 0.2011 420 0.1075 0.2912 <.0001 Supervisor Satisfaction Base Pay 0.1422 420 0.0472 0.2347 0.0035 Job in General Base Pay 0.1228 420 0.0274 0.2159 0.0118 Promotion Satisfaction On Site 0.3112 427 0.2229 0.3945 <.0001 Work Satisfaction On Site 0.1528 427 0.0587 0.2442 0.0015 Job in General On Site 0.0990 427 0.0041 0.1920 0.0410
35 Table 2-8. Supervisor satisfaction regressed on performance Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate .227a .052 .039 12.808 a. Predictors: (Constant), PerformanceRating2007, PerformanceRating2009, PerformanceRating2008 ANOVAb Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression Residual Total 2043.388 3 681.129 4.152 .007a 37567.376 229 164.050 39610.764 232 a. Predictors: (Constant), PerformanceRating2007, PerformanceRating2009, PerformanceRating2008 b. Dependent Variable: Supervisor Satisfaction Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. 95.0% Confidence Interval for B B Std. Error Beta Lower Bound Upper Bound (Constant) PerformanceRating2009 PerformanceRating2008 PerformanceRating2007 18.510 7.119 2.600 .010 4.484 32.537 1.642 2.369 .068 .693 .489 -3.025 6.310 2.354 2.323 .103 1.013 .312 -2.224 6.932 2.222 1.877 .093 1.184 .238 -1.476 5.920 a. Dependent Variable: Supervisor Satisfaction Table 2-9. Pay satisfaction and performance controlling for base pay effects Control Variables: Base Pay Performance Rating 2009 Performance Rating 2008 Performance Rating 2007 Pay Satisfaction r .013 .023 .064 p .816 .696 .281 df 332 288 284
36 Table 2-10. Sick leave and satisfaction controlling for age effects Control Variables: Age SickLeave Job in General Correlation -.143 Significance (2-tailed) .005 df 379 Pay Satisfaction Correlation -.030 Significance (2-tailed) .563 df 379 Promotion Satisfaction Correlation -.159 Significance (2-tailed) .002 df 379 Work Satisfaction Correlation -.221 Significance (2-tailed) .000 df 379 Supervisor Satisfaction Correlation -.172 Significance (2-tailed) .001 df 379 People Satisfaction Correlation -.094 Significance (2-tailed) .068 df 379 Table 2-11. Sick leave and perf ormance controlling for age effects Control Variables : Age Performance Rating 2009 Performance Rating 2008 Performance Rating 2007 Sick Leave Correlation .036 .001 -.076 Significance (2-tailed) .510 .985 .204 df 332 287 282 Table 2-12. Performance regressed on personality (linear) Summary of Fit 2009 2008 2007 RSquare 0.1231 0.1022 0.1611 RSquare Adj 0.0428 0.0063 0.0701 Root Mean Square Error 0.5301 0.5681 0.5333 Mean of Response 3.7706 3.6710 4.1338 Observations (or Sum Wgts) 335 291 287 Prob > F 0.0447 0.3812 0.0119
37 Table 2-13. Performance regressed on personality (knotted spline) Summary of Fit 2009 2008 2007 RSquare 0.2032 0.2142 0.2547 RSquare Adj 0.0662 0.0544 0.1006 Root Mean Square Error 0.5236 0.5541 0.5245 Mean of Response 3.7706 3.6710 4.1338 Observations (or Sum Wgts) 335 291 287 Prob > F 0.0265 0.0792 0.0076 2007 2008 2009 Figure 2-1. Employee performance rating distributions Table 2-14. Satisfaction regressed on personality (linear) Summary of Fit JIG Pay Promo tion Work Supervisor People RSquare 0.1868 0.0853 0.1342 0.2232 0.1279 0.1122 RSquare Adj 0.1296 0.0209 0.0733 0.1685 0.0665 0.0498 Root Mean Square Error 7.8075 13.9093 16.6998 9.3890 12.2816 12.0142 Mean of Response 46.0796 17.269 3 26.0234 44.1452 42.9742 41.0586 Observations (or Sum Wgts) 427 427 427 427 427 427 Prob > F <.0001 0.1274 0.0005 <.0001 0.0012 0.0086 Table 2-15. Satisfaction regressed on personality (knotted spline) Summary of Fit JIG Pay Promo tion Work Supervisor People RSquare 0.2293 0.1271 0.1671 0.2625 0.1769 0.1357 RSquare Adj 0.1291 0.0137 0.0588 0.1666 0.0699 0.0234 Root Mean Square Error 7.8094 13.9609 16.8296 9.3997 12.2595 12.1799 Mean of Response 46.0796 17.269 3 26.0234 44.1452 42.9742 41.0586 Observations (or Sum Wgts) 427 427 427 427 427 427 Prob > F <.0001 0.2772 0.0144 <.0001 0.0054 0.1698
38 CHAPTER 3 A TEST OF WARMTH AND COMPETENCE IN AN ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT Theres a growing consensus among cognitive scie ntists that individuals judge one another on the basis of warmth and competence (Fiske Cuddy & Glick, 2006). Theo rized to stem from evolutionary origins where ones survival was predicated on ones abil ity to judge anothers intentions, and ability to act on such intentions, a growing body of research demonstrates that such interpersonal judgments are universal in nature, quickly deduced (Willis & Todorov, 2006), and elicit predictable affective and behavi oral reactions (Fiske, et al., 2006). Research surrounding the interpla y of the two dimensions has given rise to the BIAS map (Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2007). The BIAS map provide s a graphical represen tation in which the relative levels of warmth (i.e., intentions) and competence (i.e., ability to act on intentions) designate the emotional and behavioral responses typically elicited. Emot ional outcomes include admiration, envy, contempt or p ity. Behavioral outcomes include active facilitation, passive facilitation, active harm or passive harm (Cuddy, et al., 2007). In general terms, the perception of high levels of both warmth and competence educes uniformly positive emotions and behaviors. Alternatively, the combination of low levels warmth and competence elicits consistently negative emotions and behaviors. While Fiske and others inves tigated how we form impressi ons of others in a general context, we are more concerned with ongoi ng impressions that are more relevant to organizations. We draw on Fiskes research to provide a general framework for our study and consider the predictive emotiona l and behavioral outcomes of th e BIAS map in the formulation of hypotheses. We have selected the established I/O psychology di mensions of equity preference (EP) and core self-evaluations (CSE) to serve as contextually relevant proxies of warmth and competence as have been defined in recent soci al cognition literature. In addition, given the
39 potentially relativistic nature of such interpersonal judgments, we consider the trait levels of those individuals making judgments relative to the levels possessed by t hose individuals about whom those judgments are being made. Hierarch ical linear modeling is therefore used to examine the interactive effects of equity preference and co re self-evaluations between supervisors and subordinates in re lation to the affective outcomes of supervisor satisfaction and subordinate performance. The interpretation of an indivi duals warmth is believed to oc cur prior to th e evaluation of an individuals competence. From an evolutiona ry or survivalist perspective, whether an individual is deemed to be friend or foe is of primary importance. The warmth dimension is inferred from the perceived motives of the individual (Reeder, Kumar, Hesson-McInnis & Trafimow, 2002). Individuals interpreted as e xhibiting warmth are char acterized as friendly, helpful, trustworthy, generous and moral (Wojciszke, 1998, 1994; Fiske et al., 2006). Of the many warmth-related personality dimensions researchers have examined, there are few considered specifically relevant to indi vidual outcomes within organizational contexts. Although personality traits such as agreeableness have been shown to broadly influence interpersonal relationships (Graziano, Jensen-Campbell & Hair, 1996; Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2001), the relevance of the trait as an antecedent to both satisfaction and performance within an organizational context has been shown to be mild, and oftentimes, occupation specific (Barrick & Mount, 1991; 1993). For the purpose of the present st udy, researchers chose to focus on a personality dimension that (i) was more broa dly related to organizational settings, (ii) had prior associations with both satisfaction and performance, and (iii) included notions of helpfulness, generosity and ethics.
40 Classical equity theory (Adams, 1963) proposes that individuals eval uate their ratio of inputs and outcomes with that of a comparison other. If the ratios are seen as unbalanced, inequity exists. The theory holds that the perception of inequi ty leads to distress, and by extension, compels the individual to engage in behaviors intended to restore balance. Such behaviors often include adjusting actual or perc eived inputs and outcomes, refocusing attention on another referent other, or choosing to wit hdraw from the relations hip entirely (Huseman, Hatfield & Miles, 1987)). Since the theorys introduction, researchers di scovered that not all subjects reacted to perceptions of inequity as the theory predicted. Some individuals were satisfied despite obvious ine quities in their input/outcome mix while others satisfaction appeared closely attuned to the equality of their input/outcome mix relative to referent others. Several researchers theorized that individuals possessed a certain inhe rent sensitivity to perceptions of inequity and that it was this individual-level characteristic that affected outcomes. Equity sensitivity theory was proposed by Huseman, et al. (1985, 1987) as a refinement of classical equity theory. Their studies led to the development of a classification structure whereby participants attitudes toward equity situations determined group divisions and individual standing. Theoretically, the equity sensitivity co nstruct can be viewed as a continuum with Benevolents on one end and Entitleds on the other. The theory holds that individuals exhibiting benevolent attitudes are less likel y to feel uneasy in situations where they are underrewarded relative to their peers. Equity Sensitive individuals (repr esenting the middleground) typically follow a norm of equity whereby they experience the least discomfort when their outcomes are commensurate with their inputs. Lastly, Entitleds feel most at ease when their efforts are over rewarded relative to referent others.
41 Since the theorys introduction, equity sensitivity has been s hown to be associated with a number of warmth-related outcomes. Individu als high in equity sensitivity are termed benevolents and are described as givers (Mudrack, Mason & Stepanski, 1999; Kickul, Gundry & Posig, 2005; Shore, Sy & Strauss, 2006) a nd altruists (Wheeler 2002; Bing & Burroughs, 2001; Huseman, et al., 1987). They derive satisfacti on from being a donor or creditor and feel discomfort when on the receiving end of a social exchange (Greenburg & Wescott, 1983). Benevolent individuals display gr eater concern for relationships (Kickul, et al., 2005; Huseman, et al., 1985; King & Hinson, 1994) and others need s and feelings (Major, Bylsma & Cozzarelli, 1989; Mudrack, Mason & Stepanski, 1999). They re port higher satisfaction (Huseman, et al., 1985; Wheeler, 2002; King & Miles, 1994) work harder for less pay (Wheeler, 2002; Miles, Hatfield & Huseman, 1989, 1994) receive higher performance ratings (Bing, et al., 2001) and engage in more organizational citizenship behaviors (Blakely, Andrews & Moorman, 2005; Kickul & Lester, 2001). Benevolents also show greater concern for re lationship-based trust (Kickul, et al., 2005), view ethically questionabl e workplace activities as inappropriate (Kickul, et al., 2005; Mudrack, et al., 1999), and take others outcomes into account when making decisions (Mudrack, et al., 1999). The interpretation of an indi viduals competence follows infe rences of an individuals warmth. Logically, information concerning whether an individual is able to act on intentions is only of interest after a determin ation of the individuals intenti ons is made. Although researchers have had minor debates surrounding the lexical defi nition of warmth, there is general agreement on what constitutes competence. Competence is described as perceived ability and is characterized by traits of inte lligence, efficacy, foresight and efficiency (Wojciszke, 1998, 1994; Fiske et al., 2006).
42 The core self-evaluation concept was in troduced in 1997 as an outgrowth of the dispositional factors affecting job satisfaction (Judge, Locke & Durham, 1997). Borrowed from several fields, the construct repres ents a higher order trait rooted in self-esteem, generalized selfefficacy, neuroticism, and locus of control (Jud ge, Erez, Bono & Locke, 2005). Individuals high in core self display higher levels of self-e steem, elevated generalized self-efficacy, greater emotional stability and an inte rnal locus of control. Although the core self-evaluation was initially proposed to account for variance in job satisfaction, further resear ch has highlighted its association with a number of competency-related outcomes including job performance, career success and the attainment of more complex and challenging jobs. Individu als high in core self display higher levels of motiva tion, greater ability to cope with stress and setbacks, and better capitalize on advantages and oppor tunities (Judge, 2009). Conceptua lly, the core self-evaluation is designed to provide research ers with a glimpse into an indi viduals assessment of his or her basic ability, merit and efficacy as a person (Judge, Erez, Bono & Thoresen, 2003). It has been described as fundamental, bottom-line evaluations that people make of themselves (Judge, 2009). In the present study, researchers focus on two affective outcomes, th e supervisors rating of subordinate job performance and the subordina tes satisfaction with supervisor. Since these are two separate outcomes arising from the percep tions of individuals of unequal status, we must consider whether the introducti on of such an organizational hierarchy might affect an individuals perceptions of a nothers warmth and competence. Furthermore, we must ask whether the warmth and competence of an indivi dual are both theoretical ly relevant given the affective outcomes under consideration.
43 The introduction of an organizational hierarchy has the potential to a ffect perceptions of warmth and competence in at least two ways. First, and most salient, is that competence is typically associated with promotions and advancem ent. Its no secret that the more competent individuals are usually the ones who receive promotions. As such, individuals higher up in the organizational hierarchy may be inherently percei ved as more competent. Furthermore, insofar as competence is defined as an individuals abilit y to act on intentions, in dividuals with greater authority have greater ability to exert influence and aff ect change. A second way an organizational hierarchy may a ffect perceptions surrounds the availability of information. Whereas oftentimes warmth, as defined as anothe rs intentions, must be inferred, in supervisorsubordinate relations, these intentions are often communicated explicitly. Most often taking the form of direction and feedback, it is the superv isor who provides the subordinate with his or her intentions. The supervisor, in turn, expects and assumes the subordina te to act on, and carry out, such intentions. In this way, the subordinate is interested in the supervisors intentions in that he or she must adopt the in tentions of the supervisor. In contrast, the supervisor is less interested in the subordinates actua l intentions in that such intent ions are largely irrelevant given the status differential and contextual nature of the interaction. Regarding whether the warmth and competence of an individual ar e both theoretically relevant given the affective outcomes, it is re asonable to suspect th at the subordinates competence would have a more direct bearing on the job performance rating he or she receives than the subordinates warmth. Most individuals are hired to perform a function, a function that presumably requires at least a minimum level of competence to perform. In addition, most supervisors would agree that ev aluating subordinate job performa nce is one of a supervisors fundamental responsibilities and that many supervisors are aware of their subordinates
44 performance on an ongoing basis. This is not to di scount the relevance of warmth as it may relate to job performance, but merely to point out that in most cases, compared to competence, warmth would be of secondary importance. It is also r easonable to propose that supervisor warmth would exert a greater influence on the subordinates satisfaction with supervisor than supervisor competence. Evaluating supervisor competence is generally not the responsibility of the subordinate. Furthermore, assuming the supervis or possesses the minimum level of competence necessary to remain in the position, it is reasona ble to suspect that the status differential will promote the perception of adequate competency. In further support of th e primacy of warmth, it is likely that the subordinates performance will, at some time, be the topic of conversation between the supervisor and subordinate. Its fores eeable that at this time, the subordinate would be especially attuned to, and pe rhaps unfortunately reliant upon, supervisory warmth. This is not to say that supervisor co mpetence is unlikely to exert an influence on the subordinates satisfaction with supervisor, but merely to point out that its influence would, in most cases, be less than that of warmth. We have thus far provided theoretical rationale for the relevance of two traits, warmth and competence, as they relate specifically to the affective outcomes of subordinate supervisor satisfaction and job performance, respectively. Having argued subordinate competence as a primary determinant of his or her performance rating, we now turn our attention toward the theoretical justifications in support of interactive effects be tween supervisor-subordinate traits. Since the supervisor is respons ible for providing subordinate performance ratings, we must consider whether the supervisors warmth a nd competence might influence the performance ratings he or she provides. In terms of warmth, its foreseeable that a highly warm supervisor would be more lenient and gener ous in their ratings of subordi nate performance and would be
45 more likely, on average, to give higher performance ratings. Fu rthermore, because of such warmth, they may be especially forgiving towa rds the less competent employees and rate them as higher performers than thei r level of competence might otherwise imply. By extension, it follows that less warm raters would tend to, on av erage, give lower overa ll performance ratings. With respect to supervisors competence, it w ould seem that the supervisors with higher levels of competence would be more likely to recognize and appreciate competence in their subordinates. Logically, it follows that more co mpetent supervisors woul d rate more competent subordinates higher. Similarly, less competent su pervisors may be less li kely to recognize the levels of competence displayed by their subordin ates or may even perceive more competent subordinates as a threat to their status. In su ch cases, it is reasonabl e to suspect that less competent supervisors may intentionally lower th e ratings of their more competent subordinates as a form of intimidation and dominance. In turning towards the BIAS map, we find high competence to occupy the rightmost half of the figure depicting the affectiv e and behavioral outcomes of admiration (in conjunction with high warmth), passive facilitation (average le vel of warmth) and envy (coupled with low warmth). Alternatively, low competence is associ ated with pity (high warmth), passive harm (average warmth) and contempt (low warmth). On the basis of similarity attraction theory and with reference to the BIAS map. we believe that supervisors low in competence will pity subordinates who are likewise low in compet ence and envy those subordinates who display higher levels of competence. In terms of perfor mance ratings, these conditions are expected to lead to inflated ratings for their less compet ent employees and lower ratings of their more competent subordinates. Alternativ ely, supervisors who are high in competence are likely to feel contempt for their less competent subordinates a nd admire those subordinates who are more like
46 themselves. Regarding performance ratings, this would likely result in a familiar pattern of scores where the less competent subordinates are rated lower than their more competent counterparts. In light of the aforementioned rationa le, we propose the following hypotheses: 1. Subordinate CSE will be positively related to subordinate performance ratings 2. A significant interaction between supervis or CSE and subordinate CSE related to performance ratings 3. A significant Interaction between supervis or EP and subordinate CSE related to performance ratings Having argued that the subordinate would be more familiar with his or her supervisors intentions than his or her comp etence, we must consider whether the subordinates own warmth and competence might influence the supervisor satis faction ratings he or she provides. Regarding warmth, its foreseeable that warm subordinates may be more forg iving and charitable in their self-reported ratings of supervis or satisfaction. We believe that the warmer subordinates will, on average, provide higher supervisor satisfaction ra tings than their less warm counterparts. There also exists the potential for the subordinates actual in tentions to conflict w ith the supervisors supplied intentions. Although we mentioned previously that the supervisor is less concerned with the subordinates actual intentions in regards to the perf ormance ratings he or she provides to the subordinate, this is not to say that the subor dinate is without con cern for his or her own intentions. The possibility therefore exists that regularly incompatible intentions may negatively impact the subordinates supervisor satisfacti on rating in much the same way that aligned intentions may have a positive impact. It should be mentioned however that it is unknown the extent to which both ongoing interactions and th e status differential might suppress interactive effects. Ongoing interactions might create a leve l of expectancy surrounding intention alignment
47 or divergence. Its plausible that the more ne gatively affected subordinates seek employment elsewhere or alternatively, become mo re accepting of the state of affairs. On the topic of competence, its reasona ble to suspect that the more competent subordinates will be more likely to recognize and appreciate a supervisor who displays greater warmth. In addition, subordinates with higher le vels of competence are expected to be higher performers and therefore most in teractions with their supervisor s are expected to occur on more amiable grounds compared to their lower performing coworkers. Alternativel y it could be argued that the least competent subordinates would be mo st appreciative of great er supervisor warmth. We do not deny that these individuals may in fact rely on a supervisors warmth for continued employment, but such a one-way re liance is expected to strain supervisor/subordinate relations and eventually lead to nega tive affect for both parties. Returning to the BIAS map, we find the upper he misphere entailing high warmth to inspire pity (in conjunction with low competence) ac tive facilitation (average competence) and admiration (high competence). The lower, low warm th, half elicits contempt (low competence) active harm (average competence) and envy (hig h competence). On the basis of the lexical descriptors of the two hemispheres we believe that those supervisors who are high in warmth will receive higher subordinate satisfaction rating s than those supervisors who fall into the low warmth category. In addition, insofar as the ability to dete ct warmth in others may be viewed as a competency, we believe that the more co mpetent subordinates will provide greater differentiation among supervisors who possess differing levels of warmth. As such, we would expect to see greater variance or differentiation in the supervisor satisfaction ratings reported by subordinates high in competence compared to satisfaction ratings among subordinates low in
48 competence. Furthermore, we expect to see supe rvisor satisfaction rati ngs highest among those supervisors high in warmth as rate d by subordinates high in competence. In light of the aforementioned rationa le, we propose the following hypotheses: 4. Subordinate EP will be positively related to subordinate supervisor satisfaction ratings 5. A significant interaction between supervis or EP and subordinate CSE related to subordinate supervisor satisfaction ratings 6. A significant interaction between supervisor EP and subordinate EP related to subordinate supervisor satisfaction ratings Participants were employees of a large govern mental natural resour ce recreation agency located in the southeastern Un ited States. The agency provides outdoor recreational services to an annual attendance of approximately 19 million visitors and has 1061 full time employees. The vast majority of the employees in this organization are assigned to work at one, or several, of 160 geographically dispersed units. Employees ty pically spend a great deal of their time independently patrolling geogr aphically distant locales incl uding boundary lines, areas of specific ecological concern and various unit access points. Work routines are usually seasonally dependent. There is considerable daily variety in the number and t ype of job tasks. Because of the general remoteness of individual work assi gnments, employees are expected to make defensible decisions essentially unsupervised. Employees were invited to participate in th e study by email and th eir participation was completely voluntary. Participants completed the online survey during work time and data obtained from the employees was matched to arch ival data provided by the organizations human resources department. Human resource informa tion included employee performance rating, job class, job tenure, ethnicity, a nd age. Of the 1061 eligible employees, 427 employees completed
49 the survey in full representi ng a response rate of 40%. A co mparison of respondents and nonrespondents indicated that employees who did not complete the survey were no different in their levels of performance, attendance, job class, base pay, job tenure, ethnicity or age from those who did complete the survey. Participants age ranged from 19 to 81 (median = 48); 43% were female and 91% were Caucasian. The job tenure of participants ranged from less than one year to 42 years (median = 7); 43% were classified as supervisors. A 12 item question set devel oped by Judge, Erez, Bono and Thoresen (2003) was used to capture the particip ants evaluation of core self. Coefficient alpha reliability of the scale was .81. Equity preference was measured using the 16-item Equity Preference Questionnaire (Sauley & Bedeian, 2000). Coefficien t alpha reliability of the Equity Preference scale was .83. Participants job performance was a ssessed by their imme diate supervisor using behaviorally anchored rating scales desi gned by the human resources department of the state agency. Employees were rated on five to seven criteria of performance based on their particular occupation class. Examples of perf ormance criteria include customer service and adhering to the departmental mission. The rating scale by which employees were evaluated ranged from 1= Unacceptable (Examples of anchors included The employee requires close supervision and his/her work requires continual correction; The employees job knowledge is insufficient to meet daily requirements) to 5 = Exceptional (Examples of anchors included The employee requires little or no supervision from management in accomplis hing his/her tasks and seeks opportunities to enhance the organization; The employee is re lied upon to solve complex problems and applies
50 creativity and innovative approaches in formulati ng solutions). Supervisor s were instructed to provide employee ratings for each of the indivi dual performance criteri a then calculate the arithmetic average to serve as the employee s overall performance rating. The performance ratings used in this study were obtained from the organi zations 2009 annual individual performance review. Satisfaction with supervisor was measured with the Supervision sub-scale of the JDI (Smith, Kendall & Hulin, 1969) as modified by Roznowski (1989). The coefficient alpha reliability estimate for this measure was .91. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrela tions among the samples study variables are included in Table 3-1. Descrip tives and intercorrelations among matched pairs core selfevaluation (CSE), equity preference (EP), subor dinates supervisor satisfaction, subordinates performance rating, and supervisor a nd interactions are provided in Table 3-2. In order to test the influence of supervisors and subordinates warmth and competence on the subordinates performance and supervisor satisfaction we used hierarchical linear modeling (HLM 6.08, Raudenbush, Bryk, & Congdon, 2009). Interactions at the same level of analysis were calculated in accordance with recommendations set forth by Aiken & West, (1991). At the first level of analysis (i.e., the individual-level), th e specified model for each subordinate was: ij = 0j + 1j X1ij+ 2j X2ij + 3j X3ij + 4j X4ij + rij Where, ij was each subordinates i pe rformance under supervisor j; 0j (the intercept) represented the average performance of subordi nates under supervisor j, controlling for the subordinates CSE, EP, CSE x EP interaction and supervis or satisfaction; 1j represented the relationships between subordina tes CSE scores and their performance under supervisor j; X1ij
51 represented the CSE of subor dinate i of supervisor j; 2j represented the relationships between subordinates EP scores and thei r performance under supervisor j; X2ij represented the EP of subordinate i of supervisor j; 3j represented the relationships be tween subordinates supervisor satisfaction and their performance under supervisor j; X3ij represented the supervisor satisfaction of subordinate i of supervisor j; 4j represented the relationships between subordinates CSE x EP interaction and their perf ormance under supervisor j; X4ij represented the CSE x EP interaction of subordinate i of supervisor j; and rij represented the individual error term. HLM incorporates a second-level modeling (i.e., grou p-level model) in wh ich the intercepts (0j) and slopes ( 1j) of the individual-level model are simulta neously regressed on the supervisors personality variables: 0j = 00 + 01W1j + 02W2j + 03W3j + U0j 1j = 10 + 11W1j + 12W2j + U1j 2j = 20 + 21W1j + 22W2j + U2j 3j = 30 + U3j 4j = 40 + U4j Where, W represented supervisor j personality and values variables (CSE, EP, and CSE x EP), 00, 01, and 02 represented the relationship (i.e., inte rcept and slopes) of these supervisor traits and values to subordinate performance unde r supervisor j, controlling for subordinates CSE, EP, supervisor satisfaction, and CSE x EP interaction; 10, 11, and 12 represented interactive effects of supervisor CSE and EP with subordinates CSE on subordinate performance under supervisor j; 20, 21, and 22 represented interactive effects of supervisor CSE and EP with subordinates EP on subordinate performance under supervisor j; 20, 30, and 40 represented the influence of subordinates EP, supervisor satis faction, and CSE x EP interaction on performance under supervisor j; U represented the group-level error terms.
52 A second model was constructed, id entical to the first, but wh ere subordinates supervisor satisfaction was regressed on s ubordinates traits and values controlling for subordinate performance. The second level of analysis where the supervisors traits and values interacted with the subordinates CSE and EP levels remained unchanged. Next, we estimated the models described abov e and the results are re ported in Table 3-3. The results of Model 1, the performance model, s how that the subordinates EP, supervisors EP, and subordinates supervisor satis faction were positively related to performance. In addition, the supervisors CSE interacted with the subordina tes CSE to positively influence performance. A graph of the interaction between supervisor CSE and subordinate CSE is shown in Figure 3-1. The figure shows that supervisors give comp arably higher performance ratings to those employees whose CSE levels are more similar to their own. Supervisors who are low in CSE give employees low in CSE higher ratings; supervisors high in CSE give employees with high levels of CSE higher ratings. In contrast to the CSE x CSE interaction, the supervisors EP interacted with the subordinate s CSE to negatively influenc e performance. A graph of the interaction between supervisor EP and subordinate CSE is shown in Figure 3-2. The figure shows that supervisors high in EP give subordi nates low in CSE higher ratings compared to those employees higher in CSE. Similarly, supervis ors low in EP give hi gher ratings to those employees with high levels of CSE. The results of Model 2, the supervis or satisfaction model, show that subordinates CSE ha s a negative effect, while subordinates performance rating has a positive effect, on the subordinates supervisor sa tisfaction levels. In addition, the supervisors EP interacted with the subordinates CSE to positively influence the subordinates supervisor satisfaction. A graph of the interaction between supervisor EP a nd subordinate CSE is shown in Figure 3-3. The figure shows that subordinates low in CSE are diss atisfied with supervisors who
53 have high levels of EP. In contrast, subordinate s high in CSE are satisfied with supervisors who have high levels of EP. In terms of main effects (hypotheses 1 a nd 4), minimal support was found and only for hypothesis 1. No support was found for the relationship between subordinate EP and subordinate supervisor satisfaction. Although evidence was f ound for the existence of the CSE-performance rating relationship in the entire sample (Table 3-1), the focal main effect in HLM model 1 failed to meet the established level of significance (T able 3-3). One explana tion for the lack of statistical significance in the HL M performance model surrounds the reduction in overall sample size consequential of having matc hed subordinates with supervisor s. If one compares Table 3-1 with Table 3-2, one can see that the strength of the CSE-performance relationship was reduced and was subsequently nonsignificant (.13* to .03). Regarding the proposed interactions of model 1, the subordinate performance rating model, support was found for both hypotheses 2 and 3. Supe rvisor CSE interacted with Subordinate CSE in the determination of subordinate job performance. In support of the theoretical justification presented earlie r, competent supervisors seemed to appreciate competent subordinates and rated them as higher performe rs. Alternatively, less competent supervisors rated the performance of their less competent subordinates as higher than what their level of competence might have otherwise predicted. Furt hermore, and supportive of the premise that more competent subordinates might be viewed by less competent supervisors as a threat, among the less competent supervisors, subordinate co mpetence was negatively related to performance ratings. Supervisor EP and subordinate CSE also in teracted to influence the supervisors ratings of subordinate performance. Supervisors with greater warmth rated their less competent subordinates as higher performers and their more competent subordinates as lower performers.
54 The subordinate performance ra ting patterns displayed by the le ss warm supervisors mirrored those of the more competent supervisors. In addition, both the less competent supervisors and the supervisors with greater warmth gave their subordinates higher average performance ratings. As for model 2, the subordinates supervis or satisfaction model, support was found for hypothesis 5 but not 6. Interestingl y it appears as if the more competent subordinates prefer supervisors with greater warmth whereas the less competent s ubordinates prefer supervisors lower on such dimension. In accordance with pr evious research surrounding the relationships between CSE and satisfaction, i ndividuals with higher levels of CSE were generally more satisfied overall, regardless of supervisor warm th. As to why we failed to see a significant interaction between supervisor EP and subordinate EP, we are left to once again theorize that the supervisor-subordinate status differential coupled with ongoing interactions may have suppressed the importance of subordinate intenti ons or encouraged those for whom it was an issue to seek employment elsewhere. Although differences in status, ongoing interpersonal interactions, and other environmental factors likely affected outcomes, the present study has demonstrated warmth and competence theory has relevance to interpersonal judgments in the workplace. Our findings suggest that within such contexts, warmth and competence have the potential to in fluence both performance ratings and supervisor satisfaction. In addition, we have shown that the trait levels of the individual making judgments can interact with the levels possessed by the focal individual to influence such judgments thereby affecti ng organizationally re levant outcomes. There are several limitations of the present study. Warmth a nd competence theory typically relies on inferences an individual makes about a nother, not directly measured characteristics. Although we feel there is considerable benefit to our approach, especially as it pertains to
55 empirical analysis, it is not in keeping with warmth and competence theory as classically defined. In addition, we chose vari ables that represent individuals general tendencies; there may be other traits or personality dimensions more closely aligned to theoretical conceptualizations of either warmth or competence. Furthermore, it may be argued that performance ratings are not equivalent to the theorys emotional and beha vioral reactions. We w ould like to point out however that examination of these types of aff ective outcomes have a long history in industrial and organizational psychology and th at supervisors, without proper training, are likely to allow their personal biases to affect such outcomes (Lefkowitz, 2000). Warmth and competence theory indicates that interpersonal judgments are formed quickly, but may change as contradictory or conflicting information is introduced. It is presum ed that over protracted periods involving many interpersonal interactions that individual j udgments would become more grounded, and perhaps influenced by outside factors including personality traits not examined here. Researchers are therefore encouraged to consider other traits and situational factors that may influence the formation and character of interpersonal judgm ents. Consideration of other organizationally relevant outcomes is also encouraged. An unexpected implication of this study concerns the trait of CSE. Insofar as CSE is used practically as a predictor of performance and satisfaction, the findi ngs presented here point to the possibility that previously esta blished empirical rela tionships may have been suppressed due to moderating effects such as those presented he re. Researchers are therefore encouraged to consider potential moderators of the CS E relationships in future studies.
56 Table 3-1. Means (M), standard de viations (SD), and intercorrelations among study variable s (full sample) M SD 1 2 3 4 1. Core Self-Evaluation (CSE) 3.90 .52 (.81) 2. Equity Preference (EP) 4.35 .42 .35** (.83) 3. Supervisor Satisfaction 2.39 .71 .15** .08 (.91) 4. Performance Rating 3.77 .54 .13* .19** .21** Notes. N = 427. = p < .05 level. ** = p < .01 level. Reliab ilities are on the diagona l are in parentheses. Table 3-2. Means (M), standard de viations (SD), and intercorrelations among study variable s (paired matches) M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Subordinate CSE 3.89 .49 (.81) 2. Supervisor CSE 4.02 .45 -.05 (.81) 3. Subordinate EP 4.39 .39 .34** .08 (.83) 4. Supervisor EP 4.41 .35 -.03 .40** .08 (.83) 5. Supervisor Satisfaction 2.34 .74 .16* -.03 .03 -.12 (.91) 6. Performance Rating 3.79 .55 .03 .01 .22** .05 .26** 7. Subordinate CSE x EP .34 1.08 .10 -.09 -.14 -.07 -.06 -.13 8. Supervisor CSE x EP .40 .99 -.08 .54** .03 -.02 -.07 .06 .01 Notes. N = 193. = p < .05 level. ** = p < .01 level. Reliab ilities are on the diagona l are in parentheses.
57 Table 3-3. HLM coefficients and signi ficance of performance (Model 1) a nd supervisor satisfaction (Model 2) Performance Supervisor Satisfaction 1. Subordinate CSE .21 -3.62* 2. Subordinate EP 2.30* -1.29 3. Supervisor CSE -.92 -.62 4. Supervisor EP 2.98* -4.08 5. Supervisor CSE x EP .13 -.14 6. Supervisor Satisfaction .21** .NA 7. Subordinate CSE x EP -.05 -.07 8. Subordinate Performance .NA .39** 9. Supervisor CSE x Subordinate CSE .35** .13 10. Supervisor EP x Subordinate CSE -.37* .78* 11. Supervisor CSE x Subordinate EP -.15 .08 12. Supervisor EP x Subordinate EP -.31 .18 Note s. N =79 (supervisors) and 151 (subordinate s). p < .05. ** p < .01. Subordinate CSE, EP, supervisor satisfaction, CSE x EP, and subordinate performance are at the first leve l of analysis. Supervisor CSE, Supervisor EP and Supervisor CSE x EP are intercept effects at the second level of analysis. Supervis or-subordinate interactions (Supervisor CSE x Subordinate CSE, Supervisor EP x Subordi nate CSE, Supervisor CSE x Subordinate EP and Supervisor EP x Subordinate EP) are at th e second level of analysis.
58 3.25 3.56 3.88 4.19 4.50 3.68 3.74 3.81 3.87 3.94Subordinate Core SelfSubordinate Performance Supervisor Core Self = 3.67 Supervisor Core Self = 3.92 Supervisor Core Self = 4.25 Figure 3-1. Performance outcome of supervisor-subordinate core self trait interaction.
59 3.71 3.76 3.81 3.86 3.90Subordinate Performance 3.25 3.56 3.88 4.19 4.50Subordinate Core Self Supervisor Equity Preference = 4.19 Supervisor Equity Preference = 4.44 Supervisor Equity Preference = 4.69 Figure 3-2. Performance outcome of supervisor-subordina te equity preference-core self trait in teraction.
60 3.25 3.56 3.88 4.19 4.50 1.95 2.11 2.28 2.44 2.60Subordinate Core SelfSubordinate Supervisor Satisfaction Supervisor Equity Preference = 4.19 Supervisor Equity Preference = 4.44 Supervisor Equity Preference = 4.69 Figure 3-3. Satisfaction outcome of supervisor-subordinate e quity preference-core se lf trait interaction.
61 CHAPTER 4 THE PERSONALITY OF THE PARK RANGER : AN EXAMINATION OF TRAIT-BASED RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN A NATURAL RESOURCE RECREATION AGENCY The appeal of government employment is on the rise (Clark, 2009). The recent economic downturn and general disenchantment with corpor ate America has led more job seekers to turn their attention to the relative stability associated with government work (Vogel, 2009). Coupled with this trend is an increasing concern for the environment and interest in environment-related work (Berger, 2009; Berman, 2009). Within the environmental sector, government is one of the largest employers accounting for over 60% of c onservation scientists and foresters (Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2011) and 80% of forest a nd conservation workers (Occupational employment statistics, 2009). Personality assessments for the purpose of recruitment, selection and management of employees have been used by private and publicly traded corporations for many years. It is currently estimated that much as 75% of companies use, or are considering the use of, such testing procedures in their employee selec tion and development pr ocesses (Anderson, 2010). Despite the competitive advantages that such an approach affords, most governments have been slow to adopt similar practices. Perhaps owing to bureaucratic processes or the absence of a profit motive, most governments have failed to invest in research su rrounding associations within their own organizations, much less incorporate such find ings into their decision making processes. Government sponsored environmental work is unique. It is often more complex and demanding than the general public is aware. Within the natura l resource recreation field, an employees roles and responsibilities are often fluid and dependent on a number of factors including visitation patterns, se asonality, weather and an asso rtment of emergency-related situations that may arise duri ng the course of employment. Weekly work may range from
62 cleaning bathrooms to fighting wildfires, from providing campfire programs to participating in search and rescue operations. Alt hough it would be convenient to re ly on prior findings from the field of industrial and organiza tional psychology during the recrui tment and selection process, the unique nature of the work to which su ch findings would be applied makes such generalizations partic ularly problematic. As such, the purpose of this study is to inve stigate the relationships among personality, satisfaction and work-related ou tcomes within a governmental natural resource recreation agency. We examine three sets of relationships The first are those among personality and job satisfaction. We include the Five Factor model of personality, core self-evaluation and equity preference. The job satisfaction construct include s 5 separate satisfaction facets and an overall job in general measure. The second series of relati onships are among the listed personality dimensions and several work-related outcomes including performance, leave, tenure, gender and employment rank. Lastly, we examine relationships among satisfaction and the various workrelated outcomes. Where available, we provide prior meta-analytic findings and offer comparisons with results presented here. It is be lieved that this study may, in some small part, add to the body of knowledge to which natural resource management organizations may refer during strategic planning a nd administration of employee recruitment, selection and management. Since the 1980s, the five factor model (FFM) of personality has grown to become the most widely used personality taxonomy in industrial and organizational psyc hology (Barrick, Mount & Judge, 2001). The origins of the FFM are traced back to the 1940s where researchers such as Fiske (1949) employed factor analysis to distill large datasets of pe rsonality descriptors and traits into their underlying components. Although early findings hinted at the existence of five main
63 factors, published research on the subject had little effect (Digman, 1990). In the 1960s, unknown to all but a handful of researchers, was an Air Force study, the purpose of which was to determine whether or not there were any persona lity traits were associated with officer effectiveness. Tupes and Christal s (1961) factor analysis rev ealed that five broad factors underlying the 35 personality traits accounted for a significant portion of variance. Researchers labeled the principal factors surgency, agreeab leness, dependability, emotional stability and culture. The few researchers who were aware of the study began their own research from within the FFM paradigm. Subsequent research focuse d on refining the factors and describing their relationship to outcomes of interest. The current FFM represents the evolution of findings by these early researchers and well as Goldberg (1981), Costa and McCrae (1985) and Digman (1990). Collectively, their research led to the de velopment of a personality model characterized by 5 factorsnamely, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Openness to Experience. Extraversion is typified by a desire for activ e social interaction. I ndividuals high in this trait exhibit increased tendencies to interact with others and often feel energized by such interactions. Agreeableness refers to an individua ls willingness to cooperate with others. Such willingness implies a high degree assumed trust and consideration of others feelings and desires. Conscientiousness manifests itself through characteri stics such as dependability, persistence, and organization. Individuals high in conscientiousness appear discip lined and achievement-oriented. Emotional Stability refers to an individuals ability to temper emotions. Individuals high in emotional stability display few outward expressi ons and are able to remain calm in difficult situations. Openness to Experience pertains to i ndividuals described as im aginative, intellectual
64 and artistically sensitive (Mount, Barrick, Scu llen and Rounds, 2005). Individuals high in this trait display heightened intellectualism a nd an acceptance of alte rnate viewpoints. The FFM has been applied extensively within the fields of industrial and organizational psychology. A search of PsychINFO reveals more th an 20,000 articles associated with either the entire model or one of its broad factors. It remains the most widely accepted model of personality trait structure (Costa & McCrae, 2009). Of primary in terest to many researchers has been the strength of correlations between th e modeled personality traits and work-related outcomes. Researchers have identified correlation s between specific personality dimensions and employee performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991), organizational commitment (Erdheim, Wang & Zickar, 2006), job satisfaction (Judge, Heller & Mount, 2002), or ganizational deviance (Berry, Ones & Sackett, 2007), pay satisfacti on (Shaw, Duffy, Jenkins & Gupta, 1999), counterproductive work behaviors (Mount, Ilies & Johnson, 2006) and many other outcomes of interest to employers. The core self-evaluation concept was in troduced in 1997 as an outgrowth of the dispositional factors affecting job satisfaction (Judge, Locke & Durham, 1997). Borrowed from several fields, the construct repres ents a higher order trait rooted in self-esteem, generalized selfefficacy, neuroticism, and locus of control (Jud ge, Erez, Bono & Locke, 2005). Individuals high in core self display higher levels of self-e steem, elevated generalized self-efficacy, greater emotional stability and an inte rnal locus of control. Although the core self-evaluation was initially proposed to account for variance in job satisfaction, further resear ch has highlighted its association with a number of outcomes includi ng job performance, career success and the attainment of more complex and challenging jobs Individuals high in co re self display higher levels of motivation, greater abil ity to cope with stress and se tbacks, and better capitalize on
65 advantages and opportunities (Judge, 2009). Concep tually, the core self-evaluation is designed to provide researchers with a gl impse into an individuals assessm ent of his or her basic ability, merit and efficacy as a person (Judge, Erez, Bono & Thoresen, 2003). It has been described as fundamental, bottom-line evaluations that people make of themselves (Judge, 2009). Equity sensitivity theory was proposed by Huseman, Hatfield and Miles (1985, 1987) as a refinement of classical equity theory. Their st udies led to the development of a classification structure whereby participants attitudes toward equity situations determined group divisions and individual standing. Theoretically, the equity sens itivity construct can be viewed as a continuum with Benevolents on one end and Entitleds on the other. The th eory holds that individuals exhibiting benevolent attitudes are less likely to feel uneasy in situations where they are underrewarded relative to their peers. Equity Sensitive individuals (representing the middleground) typically follow a norm of equity wher eby they experience the least discomfort when their outcomes are commensurate with their inputs. Lastly, Entitleds feel mo st at ease when their efforts are over rewarded relative to referent others. Since the theorys introduction, equity sensitivity has been s hown to be associated with a number of outcomes of interest. Benevolent indi viduals are described as givers (Mudrack, Mason & Stepanski, 1999; Kickul, Gundry & Posig, 2005; Shore, Sy & Strauss, 2006) and altruists (Wheeler, 2002; Bing & Burroughs 2001; Huseman, et al., 1987). They derive satisfaction from being a donor or creditor an d feel discomfort when on the receiving end of a social exchange (Greenburg & Wescott, 1983). Benevolent individuals di splay greater concern for relationships (Kickul, et al., 2005; Huseman, et al., 1985; King & Hinson, 1994) and others needs and feelings (Major, Bylsma & Cozzar elli, 1989; Mudrack, Mason & Stepanski, 1999). They report higher satisfacti on (Huseman, et al., 1985; Whee ler, 2002; King & Miles, 1994)
66 work harder for less pay (Wheeler, 2002; Mi les, Hatfield & Huseman, 1989, 1994) receive higher performance ratings (Bing, et al., 2001) and engage in mo re organizational citizenship behaviors (Blakely, Andrews & Moorman, 2005; Kickul & Lester, 2001). Benevolents also show greater concern for relationshipbased trust (Kickul, et al., 20 05), view ethically questionable workplace activities as inappropriate (Kickul, et al., 2005; Mudrack, et al., 1999), and take others outcomes into account when maki ng decisions (Mudrack, et al., 1999). Relationships among the Five Factor model of personality and job satisfaction were most recently addressed in a meta-analysis by Judge, Heller & Mount (2002). Their findings demonstrated significant relationships among three of the traits and an overall measure of job satisfaction. Of the traits, neuroticism proved to be the strongest of corre lates (r = -.29) followed by conscientiousness (r = .26) and then extrav ersion (r = .25). Although the strength of the relationships sometimes varied by individual study (i.e., consci entiousness sometimes displayed a nonsignificant or negative rela tionship with job satisfaction) the overarching relationships were robust to minor deviations even when alte rnative meta-analytic weig hting procedures were used (Judge, et al., 2002). Due to the comparatively recent evolution of the CSE concept, researchers have yet to conduct a meta-analysis focusing specifically on the constructs relationship with job satisfaction. There is, however, meta-analytic evidence of relationships among the constructs constituent components. In an article by Judge & Bono (2001), researchers demonstrated positive relationships among all four of th e constructs underlying traits and job sati sfaction. The strongest of these correlations was generalized self-efficacy (r = .45), the weakest, emotional stability (r = .23). Although the average correla tion between the four traits and job satisfaction was .32, upon aggregating the traits as a singl e construct, the relationship gr ew to .41 (Judge, et al., 2004).
67 Researchers have aslo demonstrated the core self-evaluation construct to be more strongly related to job satisfac tion than the FFM traits (Judge & Heller, 2002). Although researchers have yet to perform a meta-analysis on correlates among equity preference and various job outcome s, most researchers have found positive correlations between equity sensitivity and job satisfaction (Farr, 1976; Jenkins & Lawler, 1981; Pritchard, Dunnette & Jorgenson, 1972; ONeill & Mone, 1998; King & Miles, 1994). In addition, multiple studies reported benevolents to have the highest pay sa tisfaction and lowest intentions to leave the organization (Huseman, et al., 1985; King, Mile s & Day, 1993; King, et al., 1994; Shore, 2004). Most meta-analyses surrounding the relationships between the FFM and work-related outcomes have reached the consensus that c onscientiousness (Barrick & Mount, 1991) and emotional stability are positively correlated with job performance for virtually all occupations (Anderson & Viswesvaran, 1998; Salgado, 1997; Tett, Jackson & Rothstein, 1991; Judge & Bono, 2001). Although similar large-scal e analyses have yet to focu s specifically on leave usage, prior research surrounding the FFM has found neur oticism and extraversion to be positively related (Cooper & Payne, 1966), and conscientiousness to be negatively related (Judge, Martocchio & Thoresen, 1997), to employee absence. Research surrounding the relationship between CSE and job performance have reached remarkably similar findings to those demonstrated by Barrick & Mount (1991) concerning conscientiousness relationship to performance (Judge, Van Vianen & De Pater, 2004). Furthermore, additional research has shown that individuals with high le vels of CSE actually prefer more complex work and attain more ch allenging jobs (Srivastava, Locke & Judge, 2002; Judge, Bono & Locke, 2000)---a comparative ch aracteristic of management positions. These individuals display greater motivation to perform (Judge, Erez & Bono 1998; Erez & Judge,
68 2001). For the same reasons that an individual must be present at work to perform well, it is suspected that CSE may also be related to reduced absenteeism. Equity sensitivity has been shown to be posit ively related to job pe rformance (ONeill & Mone, 1998; Bing & Burroughs, 2001) and the quanti ty or quality of work produced (Andrews, 1967; Goodman & Freidman, 1968; Valenzi & Andrews, 1971) In addition, benevolent individuals have been shown to perform more organizational ci tizenship behaviors (Blakely, Andrews & Moorman, 2005) and work harder for less pay (Huseman, Hatfield & Miles, 1989). In terms of tenure and attendance, benevolents have been shown to display reduced turnover intentions (Carrel & Dittrich, 1976; Telly, French & Scott, 1971; King and Miles, 1994) and lower absenteeism (Carrell & Dittrich, 1976). Al though relating equity pr eference to gender has not been the specific focus of primary investig ations, research surrounding reward allocation hints that the behavior of fema les is more in line with bene volent tendencies (King & Hinson, 1994). The inclusion of gender variab les in equity research has, however, been inconclusive in that relations have ranged from nonsignificant (Shore, Sy & Strauss, 2006; Evers, Tomic, Brouwers, 2005) to r = .18 (Wheeler, 2002). Formal research surrounding job satisfacti on has typically focused on the antecedents, correlates and outcomes of various employee satisfaction levels. Researchers have explored relationships between job satisfaction and personality (Judge, et al., 2002; Judge, Bono, Erez and Locke, 2005), counterproductive work behaviors (M ount, et al., 2006), turnove r intentions (Dick, Christ, Stellmacher, Wagner, Ahlswede, Grubba Hauptmeier, Hhfeld, Moltzen & Tissington, 2004; Saari & Judge, 2004 absenteeism (Wegge, Schmidt, Parkes & Van Dick, 2007), demographics (Niblock, 2000), equity sensitivity (Thompson, 1998), compensation satisfaction
69 (Igalens & Roussel, 1999), orga nizational trust (Callaway, 2007) organizational citizenship (Organ & Ryan, 1995) and many ot her factors of interest. Meta-analyses surrounding the re lationship of job satisfaction to job performance have found correlations ranging from r = .17 (Iaffald ano & Muchinsky, 1985) to r = .31 (Petty, McGhee & Cavander (1984). The most recent and comprehensive study by Judge, Throresen, Bono & Patton (2001) found the mean correlation between job satisfaction and performance to be r = .30. A separate meta-analysis focusing on the relationships between pay satisfaction and work-related outcomes found pay sati sfaction to be significantly rela ted to turnover intentions (r = -.31), voluntary turnover (r = -.17), absenteeism (r = -.05), and performance (r = .05) (Williams, McDaniel & Nguyen, 2006) In light of the negative relationship between job satisfaction and turnover intentions, it follows that organizatio nal tenure would be negatively related as well. Participants were employees of a large govern mental natural resour ce recreation agency located in the southeastern Un ited States. The agency provides outdoor recreational services to an annual attendance of approximately 19 million visitors and has 1061 full time employees. The vast majority of the employees in this organization are assigned to work at one, or several, of 160 geographically dispersed units. Employees ty pically spend a great deal of their time independently patrolling geogr aphically distant locales incl uding boundary lines, areas of specific ecological concern and various unit access points. Work routines are usually seasonally dependent. There is considerable daily variety in the number and t ype of job tasks. Because of the general remoteness of individual work assi gnments, employees are expected to make defensible decisions essentially unsupervised.
70 Employees were invited to participate in th e study by email and th eir participation was completely voluntary. Participants completed the online survey during work time and data obtained from the employees was matched to arch ival data provided by the organizations human resources department. Human resource informa tion included employee performance rating, job class, job tenure, ethnicity, a nd age. Of the 1061 eligible employees, 427 employees completed the survey in full representi ng a response rate of 40%. A co mparison of respondents and nonrespondents indicated that employees who did not complete the survey were no different in their levels of performance, attendance, job class, base pay, job tenure, ethnicity or age from those who did complete the survey. Participants age ranged from 19 to 81 (median = 48); 43% were female and 91% were Caucasian. The job tenure of participants ranged from less than one year to 42 years (median = 7); 43% were classified as supervisors. The Five Factor Model of persona lity was measured by way of the IPIP proxy of the NEO-PI-R. The instrument c onsisted of a 50 item questionnaire drawn from the International Personality Item Pool. Coefficien t alpha reliability estimates of the scales were as follows: Extraversion, = .80; Agreeableness, = .73; Conscientiousness, = .79; Emotional Stability, = .80; Openness to Experience, = .72. Core self evaluation was captu red using a 12 item question set developed by Judge, Erez, Bono and Thoresen (2003) Coefficient alpha relia bility of the scale was .81.
71 Equity preference was measured using the 16 item Equity Preference Questionnaire1 (Sauley & Bedeian, 2000). Coefficient alpha reliability of the Equity Preference scale was .83. Job satisfaction was measured in accordance with the hardcopy format of the Job Descriptive Index (B alzer, Kihm, Smith, Irwin, Bach iochi, Robie, Sinar,& Parra, 2000). Coefficient alpha reliabi lities of the scales were as follows: Job in General, = .86; Pay, = .81; Work, = .87; Promotion, =.89; Supervision, =.91; Coworkers, =.90; Participants job performance was a ssessed by their imme diate supervisor using behaviorally anchored rating scales desi gned by the human resources department of the organization. Employees were rated on five to seven criteria of performance based on their particular occupation class. Examples of perf ormance criteria include customer service and adhering to the departmental mission. The rating scale by which employees were evaluated ranged from 1= Unacceptable (Examples of anchors included The employee requires close supervision and his/her work requires continual correction; The employees job knowledge is insufficient to meet daily requirements) to 5 = Exceptional (Examples of anchors included The employee requires little or no supervision from management in accomplis hing his/her tasks and seeks opportunities to enhance the organization; The employee is re lied upon to solve complex problems and applies creativity and innovative approaches in formulati ng solutions). Supervisor s were instructed to provide employee ratings for each of the indivi dual performance criteri a then calculate the 1 Despite Equity Sensitivity Instruments continued use in research (Mintu-Wimsatt, 2003; Allen & White, 2002; Wheeler, 2002; Kickul & Lester, 2001), it remains samp le-specific (Foote & Harmon, 2005). Furthermore, the trichotomization of equity sensitivity results in a loss of measurement precision (Sualey & Bedeian, 2000). In light of the limitations associated with the Equity Sensitivity In strument, several researchers have argued for the adoption of the equity preference questionnaire (Shore & Strauss, 2008). Research by Wheeler (2007) has demonstrated both instruments produce comparable results.
72 arithmetic average to serve as the employee s overall performance rating. The performance ratings used in this study were obtained from the organi zations 2009 annual individual performance review. Beyond performance, additional arch ival data was obtained from the human resources department of the organization under examination. Data sets included tenure, gender, employee class (supervisor or supervis ee) and the amount of v acation and sick leave used in the 2008-2009 year. Means, standard deviations and intercor relations among the study variable set are presented in Tables 1 through 3. Ta ble 4-1 displays the personalit y-based traits of the study. It reveals that the traits of the FFM have a mean correlation of r = .27. The core self evaluation construct is moderately correlate d with the FFM traits at r = 42. Equity preference displays a mean correlation with the FFM traits of r = .27. Ta ble 4-2 contains the sati sfaction dimensions of the study. Table 4-2 shows that the job in general satisfaction dimension is moderately correlated with the other satisfaction dimensions at r = .39. The strongest of these job in general correlations is with work satis faction (r = .70), the weakest, pay satisfaction (r = .21). Table 4-3 displays the intercorrelations among the work-r elated outcomes. We find that performance ratings and the management job class are posi tively associated. Annual leave is positively associated with the use of sick leave, longer tenure and the management job class. The use of sick leave is positively related to longer tenure and the female gender. Tenure is positively associated with both the male gender (gender was coded 0 = male, 1 = female; r = -.24) and management. The management job class is positivel y, and significantly associated with the male gender.
73 Tables 4 through 6 present the correlations among personality, satisfaction and workrelated outcomes. Table 4-4 shows the traits most strongly associated with the satisfaction dimensions are core self, emotional stability and agreeableness. Core self is the only trait associated with all of the incl uded satisfaction dimensions. Openne ss to experience is not related to any of the satisfaction dimensions. Conscientiousness is positively and significantly related to work satisfaction (r = .18) and job in genera l (r = .16). Extraversion is positively related to promotion satisfaction (r = 13) and work sati sfaction (r = .14). Agreeableness and emotional stability are both related to al l satisfaction dimensions except pay. Agreeableness displays a mean correlation of r = 17, and extraversion sh ows a slightly stronge r relationship to the dimensions with a mean correlation of r = .21. Ag reeableness is equally related to coworker satisfaction and job in general (r = .24). Emotional stability is mo st strongly related to work satisfaction and job in general (r = .31). Similarly, core self is most strongly associated with the same dimensions at r = .35 and r = .34, respectively. Core self s hows a mean correlation of r = .23 Table 4-5 displays the correlations among the m easured personality traits and work-related outcomes. Openness to experience and agreeableness are positively and significantly related to the female gender (r = .14 and r = .12, respectiv ely), but not related to the other outcomes. Conscientiousness is also positively related to the female gender (r = .15), and performance (r = .14), but negatively related to tenu re (r = -.13). Neither extraver sion nor emotional stability is associated with any of the work-related outcomes. Core self is positively related to performance (r = .13) and reduced sick leave (r = -.13). Equity preference is pos itively related to performance (r = .19), the female gender (r = .11), and the management job class (r = .11).
74 Table 4-6 shows the correlations among the satisfaction dimensions and work-related outcomes. All satisfaction dimens ions are positively and significan tly related to the management job class. Pay satisfaction is positively related to performan ce (r = .16) as is supervisor, coworker, work and job in general satisfaction measures (r = .21, r = .11, r = .18, and r = .12, respectively). Pay satisfaction is also the only dimension positively and significantly related to the increased use of annual leave (r = .13). Prom otions, supervisor, work and job in general satisfaction dimensions are all as sociated with reduced sick l eave use (r = -.17, r = -.16, r = -.20, and r = -.14, respectively). Pay, coworker and work satisfaction are all related to longer job tenure (r = .16, r = .12, and r = .16, respectively) Promotions and work satisfaction are associated with the male gender (r = -.22 and r = -.16, respectively). In reviewing table 4-1 we find that equity preference and core self are positively and significantly related to al l of the FFM traits. This is not su rprising in that a study by Scott and Colquitt (2007) examined the relationship betw een equity sensitivity and the FFM traits and found a mean correlation of r = .20. A difference here is that equity preference displayed a somewhat stronger correlation of r = .27 and wa s also related to the trait of openness to experience. It is not known, how ever, whether such differences are properly attributed to disparities between focal populati ons (the Scott et al., 2007 study utilized a student sample) or instrument variation (equity sens itivity instrument vs. equity preference questi onnaire). Although there have been prior studies relating self-esteem, a component of CSE, to the FFM, far fewer have compared the two constructs directly. It should be mentioned, however that results presented here are comparable to those demons trated elsewhere (see Bono & Judge, 2003 for a review).
75 Table 4-2 shows that satisfied individuals tend to be satisfied across a broad range of satisfaction dimensions. It is inte resting to note that job in genera l displays moderate correlations with all job satisfaction dimensions except pay satisfaction. This is believed to be due in part to the generally low pay satisfaction levels across the sample. In addition, such low satisfaction is likely the result of baseline pay hiring practices and a uniform gove rnment pay structure. It also highlights the likelihood that indi viduals choosing to enter the na tural resource recreation field do so for reasons other than pay. In further suppor t, the strong correlation between job in general and work satisfaction indicates that much of the satisfaction derived from the line of work is due to the nature of the work itself. Table 4-3 demonstrates that those individuals of the management job class tend to receive higher performance ratings. This could be due to a general tendency for the management class to be more lenient in their estimations of one a nothers performance or, more likely, the existence of a performance-promotion relationship. Unders tandably, the management class displays longer organizational tenure. In addition, because the na tural resource recreation field has traditionally been a male dominated profession, those individu als who have longer tenu re are also typically male. It is further apparent that those individuals with greater te nure tend to take more or longer vacations. Incidentally, a moderate correlation ex ists between the use of vacation time and the use of sick leave. This relati onship is true between sick and annual leave and among the older, more tenured employees. Such a finding is somewh at contradictory to pr ior research given a negative relationship had been established be tween age and absence (Martocchio, 1989). In reviewing Table 4-4 we find our results surrounding the FFM and satisfaction generally comparable to prior research. Similar to the meta-analysis by Judge et al., (2002), neuroticism proved to be the strongest of corre lates with the overall job in ge neral measure. Differences were
76 apparent, however, in the correlation of agreeab leness with the general measure and an absence of such relationship involving extraversion. The CSE relationships in our study are somewhat lower than those reported previous ly. Our results display a mean correlation of r = .23 rather than r = .32 (Judge et al. 2001) or r = .41 (Judge, et al., 2004). Such outcomes may have been due to having used alternative measures of job satisfaction and the aggreg ate core self-evaluation instrument (Judge, et al., 2003). The CSE m easure proved to be significantly and positively related to all satisfaction dimensions despite overall low pay satisfaction levels within the sample. Surprisingly, equity pref erence was not related to pay satisfaction. This is somewhat curious given the constructs th eoretical roots in work/reward tolerance or preference. Our findings are similar to prior resear ch in terms of the theorys relation to overall job satisfaction. Table 4-5 shows that while conscientiousness is related to performance, emotional stability is not. This is different from mo st meta-analyses where both traits were judged to be predictors of performance. Such a finding within our sa mple may be due to range restriction. Those individuals higher in neuroticism may have decided to not particip ate in the study or as has been stated elsewhere, these individuals may have been selected out of the work force. Similar to prior findings, both CSE and EP are posit ively and significantly relate d to performance. Equity preference is not related to tenure. This is unus ual given the logical c onnection between reduced turnover intentions and organizational tenure. De spite prior evidence for relationships among the FFM traits and employee absence, none are pr esent here. Only CSE displays a negative relationship with employee sick leav e usage. It is interesting that the rationale typically offered in support for the relationship be tween conscientiousness and employ ee absence, specifically that achievement-oriented individuals understand ex cessive workplace absence may hinder personal job performance, may be more appropriately charac terized, in this case, through reference to core
77 self. Comparable to prior research is our fi nding between conscientiousness and performance. It is somewhat surprising that despite its associ ation with performance, conscientiousness is negatively related to tenure. This may be due to the recent hiring of more conscientious individuals or those individuals with higher levels of consci entiousness seeking employment elsewhere. It is of special inte rest that equity preference is re lated to higher performance, the female gender, and the management job class. Th e concern surrounding these associations is that the female gender is shown to be negatively relate d to the management job class. It is possible that given the fact that the field has traditionally been a male dominated profession that gender stereotyping may have contribute d to such relationships. It is worthwhile noting that work satisfaction is positively related to the male gender. Interestingly, so is promotion satisfaction (Table 4-6). The relationships apparent in Table 4-6 dem onstrate that the management class is more satisfied across all satisfaction dimensions than non-management. This is not surprising in that the management class is also associated with long er tenure. Had one or se veral of the satisfaction dimensions been particularly dissatisfying to an individual, it is likely th at the individual would have sought employment elsewhere. As mentioned previously, we find the male gender to be more satisfied with both promotions and work. A lthough not to a statistica lly significant extent, we also see all satisfaction dimensions positively associated with the male gender. True to prior findings, our results also indicate satisfaction to be negatively rela ted to the use of sick leave and positively related to organizational tenure. The relationship between satisfaction and performance is also comparable to prior meta-analytic reviews although it falls at the lower end of the spectrum at a mean r = .16.
78 In this study, meta-analytic data was used to highlight general trends and form the basis of comparisons. Results presented here highlight seve ral similarities and differences from findings obtained and distilled from a va riety of occupational fields a nd contexts. We did not find, nor expect, that results presented here would mirror the assimila tion of findings derived through meta-analytic methods. Variations in the magnit ude and direction of relations naturally arise between samples. In addition, several authors have pointed to the possibility of range restriction consequential of the manifestation of certain traits. It has been theorized that the more conscientious individuals and those higher in equity preference woul d be more likely to complete surveys voluntarily. Although it may seem as if such a state of affairs would be problematic for the current study, the same may be said of virt ually all prior studies utilizing a voluntary participation survey sample. It is possible that some of the differences highlighted in this study are exclusive to the population from which the sample was drawn. These findings may even be sample-specific. We therefore do not make the claim that these results are representative of the natural resource recreation field at large. Additional primary studi es are needed. Researchers are encouraged to target populations in the natura l resource and related fiel ds. Given the relations among core self, equity preference, satisfaction and work-related outcomes, inclusion of these variables in future research may be especially beneficial.
79 Table 4-1. Means (M), standard deviati ons (SD), and intercor relations among traits M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Openness to Experience 3.81 .54 (.72) 2. Conscientiousness 4.25 .49 .13** (.79) 3. Extraversion 3.56 .60 .24** .25** (.80) 4. Agreeableness 4.13 .46 .18** .36** .15** (.73) 5. Emotional Stability 3.96 .57 .13** .46** .32** .49** (.80) 6. Core Self-evaluations 3.90 .52 .16** .49** .38** .36** .70** (.81) 7. Equity Preference 4.35 .42 .21** .39** .19** .32** .26** .35** (.83) Notes. N = 427. = p < .05 level. ** = p < .01 level. Reliab ilities are on the diagonal are in parentheses. Table 4-2. Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and intercorrela tions among satisfaction dimensions M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Pay .96 .78 (.81) 2. Promotions 1.45 .96 .21** (.89) 3. Supervisor 2.39 .71 .27** .39** (.91) 4. Coworkers 2.28 .68 .17** .24** .44** (.90) 5. Work 2.45 .57 .18** .33** .37** .32** (.87) 6. Job in General 2.56 .46 .20** .32** .41** .32** .70** (.86) Notes. N = 427. = p < .05 level. ** = p < .01 level. Reliab ilities are on the diagona l are in parentheses. Table 4-3. Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and intercorre lations among work-related outcomes M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Performance 3.77 .54 2. Annual Leave 14.14 9.09 .11 3. Sick Leave 8.14 8.51 .05 .31** 4. Tenure 10.86 9.90 .09 .39** .11* 5. Gender .43 .50 .04 -.07 .18** -.24** 6. Management .43 .50 .28** .26** -.04 .31** -.16** Notes. N = 427. = p < .05 level. ** = p < .01 level. Gender was coded as 0 = male and 1 = female. Management was coded as 0 = supervisee or subordinate and 1 = supervisor or management.
80 Table 4-4. Correlations among trai ts and satisfaction dimensions Pay Promotions Supervisor Coworkers Work Job in General 1. Openness to Experience -.04 -.03 -.06 .01 .01 -.01 2. Conscientiousness -.02 .02 .06 .06 .18** .16** 3. Extraversion -.07 .13** .00 .02 .14** .09 4. Agreeableness .06 .10* .14* .24** .13** .24** 5. Emotional Stability .01 .12* .11* .20** .33** .31** 6. Core Self-evaluations .12* .21** .15** .18** .35** .34** 7. Equity Preference .06 .08 .08 .08 .23** .17** Notes. N = 427. = p < .05 level. ** = p < .01 level. Table 4-5. Correlations among trai ts and work-related outcomes Performance Annual Leave Sick Leave Tenure Gender Management 1. Openness to Experience -.07 -.01 -.00 .00 .14** .05 2. Conscientiousness .14** -.05 -.05 -.13** .15** -.08 3. Extraversion -.04 -.09 -.01 -.04 -.03 -.01 4. Agreeableness .07 .05 .03 -.03 .12* -.04 5. Emotional Stability .07 -.07 -.06 .04 -.09 .00 6. Core Self-evaluations .13* -.03 -.13* -.02 -.09 .02 7. Equity Preference .19** .00 -.03 -.03 .11* .11* Notes. N = 427. = p < .05 level. ** = p < .01 level. Gender was coded as 0 = male and 1 = female. Management was coded as 0 = supervisee or subordinate and 1 = supervisor or management.
81 Table 4-6. Correlations among satisfacti on dimensions and work-related outcomes Performance Annual Leave Sick Leave Tenure Gender Management 1. Pay .16** .13* -.02 .16** -.05 .31** 2. Promotions -.01 -.07 -.17** .06 -.22** .10* 3. Supervisor .21** -.04 -.16** .08 -.09 .16** 4. Coworkers .11* .03 -.09 .12* -.08 .12* 5. Work .18** -.11 -.20** .16** -.16** .19** 6. Job in General .12* -.04 -.14** .09 -.09 .11* Notes. N = 427. = p < .05 level. ** = p < .01 level.
82 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS The previous analyses provide an indication of the relationships among personality, satisfaction and work-related outcomes. As originally conceived, such data was thought to be useful in circumstances when a hiring committ ee is forced to choose between two or more candidates who, based on the committees limite d exposure and information on hand, appear essentially identical. It was intende d to provide a scientific and defe nsible rationale where, in the absence of additional information, a statistica lly justifiable consensus could be reached. The findings of chapter 2 were provided as part of an investigational examination of the utility of personality testing as it might relate to the orga nizations ongoing efforts surrounding the selection and management of its employees Although the relationships described in this chapter were of considerable statistical significance and strength, they were not of such sufficiency as to obsolesce a hiring committee s personal experience or common sense. They were intended to augment the decision-making pr ocess and provide a platform on which to base decisions in situations whose outcomes may have otherwise been left to chance. It was suggested that personality assessment should be a part of th e organizations hiring process and the results of which, should be track ed over time. These procedures would provide longitudinal data on which to base future decision s as well as substantiate and support the use of such data in the specific employment setti ng. A further suggestion wa s to include periodic satisfaction surveys that would assist in the compilation of a similarly comprehensive dataset intended to afford opportunities to monitor change s in the referenced relationships and detect minute organizational climate shifts over time. Although differences in status, ongoing in terpersonal intera ctions, and other environmental factors likely aff ected the outcomes include in chapter 3, the studys findings
83 demonstrated warmth and competence theory has relevance to interpersonal judgments in the workplace. Results suggested that within such contexts, warmth and competence have the potential to influence both perf ormance ratings and supervisor satisfaction. In addition, it was shown that the trait levels of the individual making judgments can interact with the levels possessed by the focal individual to influence su ch judgments thereby a ffecting organizationally relevant outcomes such as performance ratings and supervisor satisfaction. There were several limitations of the study presented in chapter 3. Warmth and competence, as a theory, relies on inferences an individual makes about another, not directly measured characteristics. Although we felt ther e was considerable benefit to our approach, especially as it pertains to empirical analysis, it could be argued that it was not in keeping with warmth and competence theory as classically de fined. In addition, we chose variables we felt adequately represented individua ls general tendencies; there ma y have been other traits or personality dimensions more clos ely aligned to the theoretical conceptualizations of warmth and competence. Furthermore, the performance ra tings used in the study may not have been equivalent to the theorys emotional and behavi oral reactions. We would like to point out that supervisors, without proper trai ning, are likely to allow their personal biases to affect such outcomes (Lefkowitz, 2000). In addition, examina tions of these types of affective outcomes have a long history in industrial and organizational psychology. Warmth and competence theory maintains th at interpersonal judgments are formed quickly, but may change as contradictory or confli cting information is introduced. It is suspected that over protracted periods, i nvolving many interpersonal intera ctions, that an individuals interpersonal judgments would become more grounded and influenced by outside factors including other personality tr aits not included in this st udy. Researchers were therefore
84 encouraged to consider other tra its and situational factors theoreti cally capable of influencing the formation and character of these and other inte rpersonal judgments. Consideration of other organizationally relevant out comes was also encouraged. Chapter 4 demonstrated that equity preference and CSE were positively and significantly related to all of the FFM traits To our knowledge, this was the fi rst time such relationships were included in a single analysis. In addition, it stands as one of the few studies to compare CSE and the FFM the traits directly. Results also showed that satisfied individuals tended to be satisfied across a broad range of satisfac tion dimensions. The correlation be tween two of the satisfaction dimensions offered support for the previously unfounded anecdotal evidence that much of the individual-level satisfaction derived from the prof ession is due to the nature of the work itself. Also apparent was the tendency for the management class to be more satisfied generally. It was suggested that organizational te nure was a prerequisite of the management class and job dissatisfaction was at od ds with job tenure. Results surrounding the FFM and job satisfactio n were generally comparable to prior research. Differences were apparent, however, in the correlation of ag reeableness with the overall measure of job satisfaction and an absenc e of such relationship involving extraversion. Mean relations of CSE to job satisfaction were somewhat lower than t hose reported previously. It was suggested that such findings were perhaps due to having used alternative measures of job satisfaction and the aggregate co re self-evaluation instrument (Judge, et al., 2003). Equity preference was unrelated to pay satisfaction. This was surprising given extant equity preference and sensitivity research and the theorys roots in work/reward outcomes. With the exception of pay, the relation of equity preference to other job satisfaction dimensions was comparable to prior findings.
85 Emotional stability was unrelated to performa nce. This was surprising given meta-analytic associations of the trait. Similar to prior findings, CSE, conscientiousness and equity preference were positively and significantly related to performance. CSE was shown to be related to reduced sick leave usage. It was suggested that rationale typi cally offered in support of the traditional findings between conscientiousness and reduced sick leave usage may apply equally to CSE. It was of particular in terest that equity pr eference was related to higher performance, the female gender, and the management job class. The concern surrounding such associations was that the female gender was shown to be negatively related to the management job class. In should be mentioned, however, that the male gende r was generally more satisfied with the nature of the work particular to the profession. For r easons mentioned previously, it was perhaps such satisfaction that led to longer tenure which, in turn, eventually led to the management class. Alternatively, results also indicated the female gender was statistically dissatisfied with promotion opportunities. Throughout the study concerns were raised regarding the inherent variability and differentiation particular to th e focal population. The organizati on maintained 160 independently operating work units. It was mentioned that within, and especia lly between units, job responsibilities, levels of public contact, work loads, coworker interactions, and work pace differed among individuals of even the same job cl ass. Concerns were raised that such withingroup variability might present special problems for detectin g minute relationships among the focal variables. By extension, it was conceived that the inherent variety within and between units might lead to a general dilution of variable relations. These circumstances may have accounted for several of the relationships of diminished meta-analytical comparative strength. Other concerns were more generic such as the possibi lity of range restricti on consequential of the
86 operation of certain traits. This was not of great importance as it wa s doubtful that such conditions affected comparisons with meta-ana lyses to any significant extent, if at all.
87 APPENDIX A CORRELATIONS Table A-1. Extended list of correlations Variable by Variable r N Lower 95% Upper 95% p Years on Site FPS Tenure 0. 883 132 0.838 0.916 <.0001 Performance Rating 2008 Performance Rating 2009 0.733 271 0.673 0.784 <.0001 Work Satisfaction Job in Gene ral 0.704 427 0.653 0.749 <.0001 Years on Site Base Pay 0.578 132 0.452 0.681 <.0001 Performance Rating 2007 Performance Rating 2008 0.575 249 0.485 0.653 <.0001 Performance Rating 2007 Performance Rating 2009 0.494 262 0.396 0.580 <.0001 Age Years on Site 0.488 132 0.345 0.608 <.0001 Core self Conscientiousness 0.486 427 0.410 0.555 <.0001 Base Pay FPS Tenure 0.477 420 0.399 0.547 <.0001 Age FPS Tenure 0.457 420 0.378 0.530 <.0001 People Satisfaction Supervisor Satis faction 0.435 427 0.354 0.509 <.0001 Base Pay Pay Satisfaction 0.420 420 0.338 0.496 <.0001 Supervisor Satisfaction Job in Ge neral 0.411 427 0.329 0.487 <.0001 Annual Leave FPS Tenure 0.390 382 0.302 0.472 <.0001 Equity Preference Conscientiousness 0.388 427 0.304 0.465 <.0001 Core self Extraversion 0.384 427 0.300 0.462 <.0001 Supervisor Satisfaction Promotion Sa tisfaction 0.379 427 0.294 0.457 <.0001 Supervisor Satisfaction Work Satis faction 0.373 427 0.288 0.451 <.0001 Agreeableness Conscientiousness 0.364 427 0.278 0.443 <.0001 Core self Agreeableness 0.356 427 0.270 0.436 <.0001 Equity Preference Core self 0.353 427 0.267 0.433 <.0001 Work Satisfaction Core self 0.346 427 0.259 0.427 <.0001 On Site FPS Tenure 0.340 420 0.253 0.422 <.0001 Job in General Core self 0.335 427 0.248 0.416 <.0001 Work Satisfaction Promotion Satisf action 0.328 427 0.240 0.410 <.0001 Base Pay Performance Rating 2009 0.322 335 0.222 0.415 <.0001 Promotion Satisfaction Job in General 0.320 427 0.232 0.403 <.0001 People Satisfaction Job in Gene ral 0.319 427 0.231 0.402 <.0001 Equity Preference Agreeableness 0.318 427 0.230 0.401 <.0001 People Satisfaction Work Satisfac tion 0.316 427 0.228 0.399 <.0001 Sick Leave Annual Leave 0.313 382 0.220 0.401 <.0001 On Site Promotion Satisfactio n 0.311 427 0.223 0.395 <.0001 Base Pay Annual Leave 0.274 382 0.179 0.365 <.0001 Supervisor Satisfaction Pay Satisfa ction 0.266 427 0.176 0.352 <.0001 Age Annual Leave 0.258 382 0.162 0.349 <.0001 Extraversion Conscientiousness 0.253 427 0.162 0.340 <.0001 Performance Rating 2008 Supervisor Satisfaction 0.245 291 0.134 0.350 <.0001 Performance Rating 2007 Equity Prefer ence 0.245 287 0.133 0.351 <.0001 People Satisfaction Promotion Satisf action 0.243 427 0.152 0.330 <.0001
88 Table A-1. Continued Openness to Experience Extraversion 0.241 427 0.150 0.329 <.0001 People Satisfaction Agreeableness 0.241 427 0.149 0.328 <.0001 Job in General Agreeableness 0.239 427 0.148 0.327 <.0001 Base Pay Performance Rating 2008 0.232 291 0.121 0.338 <.0001 Work Satisfaction Equity Prefer ence 0.228 427 0.136 0.316 <.0001 Performance Rating 2008 Equity Prefer ence 0.228 291 0.116 0.334 <.0001 Promotion Satisfaction Core self 0.209 427 0.117 0.298 <.0001 Promotion Satisfaction Pay Satisfa ction 0.208 427 0.116 0.297 <.0001 Equity Preference Openness to Expe rience 0.206 427 0.114 0.295 <.0001 Pay Satisfaction Job in Genera l 0.203 427 0.110 0.292 <.0001 Base Pay Work Satisfaction 0.202 420 0.109 0.292 <.0001 Base Pay People Satisfaction 0.201 420 0.108 0.291 <.0001 Age Base Pay 0.195 420 0.101 0.285 <.0001 Equity Preference Extraversion 0.189 427 0.095 0.279 <.0001 People Satisfaction Neuroticism -0 .198 427 -0.287 -0.105 <.0001 Equity Preference Neuroticism -0.256 427 -0.342 -0.165 <.0001 Job in General Neuroticism -0 .309 427 -0.392 -0.220 <.0001 Neuroticism Extraversion -0.321 427 -0.404 -0.234 <.0001 Work Satisfaction Neuroticism -0.325 427 -0.408 -0.238 <.0001 Neuroticism Conscientiousness -0 .457 427 -0.529 -0.379 <.0001 Neuroticism Agreeableness -0.485 427 -0.554 -0.409 <.0001 Core self Neuroticism -0.695 427 -0.741 -0.642 <.0001 Base Pay Performance Rating 2007 0.226 287 0.113 0.333 0.000 Performance Rating 2009 Supervisor Satisfaction 0.210 335 0.105 0.310 0.000 Sick Leave Work Satisfaction -0.197 382 -0.292 -0.099 0.000 Openness to Experience Agreeableness 0.181 427 0.087 0.271 0.000 People Satisfaction Core self 0.178 427 0.085 0.269 0.000 Work Satisfaction Conscientiousne ss 0.177 427 0.083 0.267 0.000 Performance Rating 2007 Supervisor Satisfaction 0.214 287 0.101 0.322 0.000 Work Satisfaction Pay Satisfac tion 0.175 427 0.082 0.266 0.000 Job in General Equity Preferen ce 0.172 427 0.079 0.263 0.000 Performance Rating 2009 Equity Prefer ence 0.193 335 0.087 0.294 0.000 People Satisfaction Pay Satisfac tion 0.170 427 0.076 0.261 0.000 Job in General Conscientiousne ss 0.164 427 0.070 0.255 0.001 Age Work Satisfaction 0.162 420 0.067 0.254 0.001 Sick Leave Promotion Satisfaction -0.170 382 -0.266 -0.071 0.001 Years on Site Annual Leave 0.286 129 0.119 0.437 0.001 FPS Tenure Work Satisfaction 0.159 420 0.064 0.251 0.001 Core self Openness to Experien ce 0.158 427 0.064 0.249 0.001 FPS Tenure Pay Satisfaction 0. 157 420 0.063 0.249 0.001 Performance Rating 2009 Work Satisfa ction 0.175 335 0.069 0.277 0.001
89 Table A-1. Continued Sick Leave Supervisor Satisfaction -0.164 382 -0.260 -0.065 0.001 Supervisor Satisfaction Core self 0.153 427 0.059 0.245 0.002 On Site Work Satisfaction 0.153 427 0.059 0.244 0.002 Years on Site Conscientiousness -0.263 132 -0.415 -0.097 0.002 Extraversion Agreeableness 0.146 427 0.052 0.237 0.003 On Site Base Pay 0.146 420 0.051 0.238 0.003 Performance Rating 2009 Pay Satisfac tion 0.161 335 0.055 0.264 0.003 Base Pay Supervisor Satisfact ion 0.142 420 0.047 0.235 0.004 Age Neuroticism -0.142 420 -0.235 -0.047 0.004 Age Equity Preference 0.142 420 0.047 0.234 0.004 Supervisor Satisfaction Agreeableness 0.140 427 0.046 0.232 0.004 Work Satisfaction Extraversion 0.137 427 0.042 0.229 0.005 FPS Tenure Conscientiousness -0. 135 420 -0.227 -0.039 0.006 Performance Rating 2007 Pay Satisfac tion 0.162 287 0.047 0.272 0.006 Neuroticism Openness to Experience -0.133 427 -0.225 -0.038 0.006 On Site Annual Leave 0.137 382 0.037 0.234 0.007 Work Satisfaction Agreeableness 0.130 427 0.035 0.222 0.007 Sick Leave Job in General -0 .137 382 -0.234 -0.037 0.007 Age Core self 0.130 420 0.035 0.223 0.008 Openness to Experience Conscienti ousness 0.129 427 0.034 0.221 0.008 Performance Rating 2009 Conscientious ness 0.141 335 0.035 0.245 0.010 Promotion Satisfaction Extraversion 0.125 427 0.030 0.217 0.010 Promotion Satisfaction Neuroticism -0.124 427 -0.217 -0.030 0.010 Sick Leave Core self -0.131 382 -0.229 -0.031 0.010 Base Pay Job in General 0.123 420 0.027 0.216 0.012 Pay Satisfaction Core self 0.120 427 0.026 0.213 0.013 On Site Extraversion 0.120 427 0.025 0.212 0.013 Annual Leave Pay Satisfaction 0.126 382 0.026 0.223 0.014 Performance Rating 2009 Core self 0.134 335 0.027 0.238 0.014 Performance Rating 2008 Job in Gene ral 0.143 291 0.029 0.254 0.014 FPS Tenure People Satisfaction 0.119 420 0.023 0.212 0.015 Performance Rating 2008 Core self 0.140 291 0.025 0.251 0.017 On Site Sick Leave -0.118 382 -0.216 -0.018 0.021 Age Sick Leave 0.115 382 0.015 0.213 0.024 Performance Rating 2008 Pay Satisfac tion 0.131 291 0.016 0.242 0.026 Years on Site Sick Leave 0.196 129 0.024 0.357 0.026 Performance Rating 2009 Job in Gene ral 0.122 335 0.015 0.226 0.026 Supervisor Satisfaction Neuroticism -0.107 427 -0.200 -0.012 0.027 Age Performance Rating 2009 0.120 335 0.013 0.225 0.028 FPS Tenure Performance Rating 2007 0.128 287 0.012 0.240 0.031 Performance Rating 2008 Conscientious ness 0.127 291 0.012 0.238 0.031
90 Table A-1. Continued Base Pay Equity Preference 0.106 420 0.010 0.199 0.031 Base Pay Core self 0.105 420 0.010 0.199 0.031 Age Conscientiousness 0.103 420 0.008 0.197 0.034 Sick Leave FPS Tenure 0.108 382 0.008 0.206 0.035 Promotion Satisfaction Agreeableness 0.100 427 0.006 0.193 0.038 On Site Job in General 0.099 427 0.004 0.192 0.041 Performance Rating 2009 People Satisfa ction 0.110 335 0.002 0.214 0.045 Age Pay Satisfaction 0.097 420 0.002 0.191 0.046 Performance Rating 2007 Extraversion -0.116 287 -0.229 0.000 0.049 Annual Leave Performance Rating 2009 0.107 335 0.000 0.212 0.051 Age Agreeableness 0.095 420 0.000 0.189 0.051 Performance Rating 2007 Work Satisfac tion 0.115 287 -0.001 0.228 0.051 Performance Rating 2007 Job in Gene ral 0.114 287 -0.002 0.227 0.054 Performance Rating 2008 Work Satisfac tion 0.110 291 -0.005 0.222 0.061 FPS Tenure Job in General 0. 090 420 -0.006 0.184 0.067 Job in General Extraversion 0.088 427 -0.007 0.182 0.069 People Satisfaction Equity Preferen ce 0.084 427 -0.011 0.178 0.082 Annual Leave Extraversion -0.089 382 -0.188 0.012 0.083 Sick Leave People Satisfaction -0.088 382 -0.187 0.012 0.084 Annual Leave Performance Rating 2008 0.101 290 -0.014 0.214 0.085 Years on Site On Site 0.150 132 -0.021 0.313 0.086 Age People Satisfaction 0.084 420 -0.012 0.178 0.087 FPS Tenure Performance Rating 2009 0.093 335 -0.014 0.199 0.088 Base Pay Neuroticism -0.083 420 -0.177 0.013 0.089 Age Job in General 0.083 420 -0.013 0.177 0.089 Supervisor Satisfaction Equity Pref erence 0.082 427 -0.013 0.176 0.090 Years on Site Performance Rating 2009 0.159 113 -0.026 0.334 0.092 Promotion Satisfaction Equity Prefer ence 0.081 427 -0.014 0.175 0.095 Years on Site Equity Preference -0.140 132 -0.304 0.032 0.109 Performance Rating 2008 Neuroticism -0.091 291 -0.204 0.024 0.121 FPS Tenure Supervisor Satisfactio n 0.075 420 -0.021 0.170 0.125 Years on Site Pay Satisfaction 0.134 132 -0.038 0.298 0.127 On Site Openness to Experience 0.074 427 -0.022 0.167 0.130 Pay Satisfaction Extraversion -0.073 427 -0.167 0.022 0.133 Age On Site 0.073 420 -0.023 0.167 0.137 Age Supervisor Satisfaction 0.073 420 -0.023 0.167 0.138 Years on Site Openness to Experience -0.129 132 -0.294 0.043 0.140 Performance Rating 2008 Agreeableness 0.086 291 -0.030 0.199 0.146 Age Promotion Satisfaction -0.071 420 -0.166 0.025 0.146 On Site Performance Rating 2008 -0.083 291 -0.196 0.033 0.160 On Site Equity Preference 0.068 427 -0.027 0.162 0.161
91 Table A-1. Continued Annual Leave Promotion Satisfactio n -0.071 382 -0.170 0.030 0.167 Performance Rating 2007 Conscientiousne ss 0.081 287 -0.035 0.195 0.170 Performance Rating 2007 Core self 0.081 287 -0.036 0.195 0.173 Supervisor Satisfaction Openness to Expe rience -0.064 427 -0.158 0.031 0.186 Performance Rating 2009 Openness to Experi ence -0.072 335 -0.178 0.035 0.187 Supervisor Satisfaction Conscientious ness 0.064 427 -0.032 0.157 0.191 Years on Site Core self -0.114 132 -0.280 0.058 0.193 Performance Rating 2009 Agreeableness 0.071 335 -0.037 0.177 0.195 Annual Leave Neuroticism 0.066 382 -0.035 0.165 0.199 FPS Tenure Promotion Satisfaction 0.062 420 -0.034 0.157 0.205 Performance Rating 2009 Neuroticism -0.069 335 -0.175 0.038 0.207 People Satisfaction Conscientiousne ss 0.061 427 -0.034 0.155 0.207 On Site Supervisor Satisfaction 0.061 427 -0.034 0.155 0.209 Years on Site Performance Rating 2007 0.117 115 -0.067 0.294 0.212 Pay Satisfaction Equity Preference 0.060 427 -0.035 0.154 0.213 Performance Rating 2007 Neuroticism -0.074 287 -0.188 0.043 0.214 Performance Rating 2008 People Satisfact ion 0.071 291 -0.044 0.185 0.226 Pay Satisfaction Agreeableness 0.058 427 -0.038 0.152 0.235 Base Pay Openness to Experience 0.058 420 -0.038 0.152 0.240 Sick Leave Neuroticism 0.060 382 -0.041 0.160 0.241 Sick Leave Performance Rating 2007 -0.069 285 -0.184 0.047 0.243 Age Performance Rating 2007 0.066 287 -0.050 0.181 0.263 Performance Rating 2008 Extraversion -0.065 291 -0.179 0.050 0.266 Years on Site Promotion Satisfaction -0.097 132 -0.263 0.075 0.270 Age Performance Rating 2008 0.065 291 -0.051 0.179 0.271 Years on Site Job in General -0.092 132 -0.258 0.081 0.296 Annual Leave Conscientiousness -0.053 382 -0.152 0.048 0.302 Sick Leave Conscientiousness -0.052 382 -0.151 0.049 0.315 FPS Tenure Performance Rating 2008 0.059 291 -0.056 0.173 0.315 On Site Performance Rating 2009 -0.053 335 -0.159 0.055 0.337 Annual Leave Agreeableness 0.046 382 -0.055 0.146 0.371 Performance Rating 2007 Agreeableness 0.052 287 -0.064 0.167 0.378 Age Openness to Experience -0.043 420 -0.138 0.053 0.383 Years on Site Supervisor Satisfaction 0.075 132 -0.098 0.242 0.396 Sick Leave Performance Rating 2009 0.046 335 -0.061 0.153 0.399 Annual Leave Supervisor Satisfactio n -0.042 382 -0.142 0.059 0.416 On Site Core self 0.039 427 -0.057 0.133 0.428 Base Pay Conscientiousness -0 .038 420 -0.134 0.058 0.433 FPS Tenure Extraversion -0.038 420 -0.133 0.058 0.441 Base Pay Agreeableness 0.038 420 -0.058 0.133 0.442 Age Extraversion -0.037 420 -0.132 0.059 0.449
92 Table A-1. Continued FPS Tenure Neuroticism -0.036 420 -0.132 0.060 0.458 Performance Rating 2009 Extraversion -0.040 335 -0.146 0.068 0.468 Pay Satisfaction Openness to Experien ce -0.035 427 -0.129 0.061 0.476 On Site Neuroticism -0.035 427 -0.129 0.061 0.477 Performance Rating 2007 Openness to Expe rience 0.042 287 -0.074 0.157 0.481 Annual Leave Job in General -0 .035 382 -0.135 0.065 0.490 Years on Site Performance Rating 2008 0.065 108 -0.125 0.251 0.501 FPS Tenure Equity Preference -0 .032 420 -0.128 0.064 0.511 Annual Leave Core self -0.033 382 -0.133 0.068 0.519 Performance Rating 2007 Promotion Satisf action -0.038 287 -0.153 0.078 0.520 Annual Leave People Satisfaction 0.032 382 -0.068 0.132 0.531 Sick Leave Equity Preference -0.029 382 -0.129 0.071 0.569 Promotion Satisfaction Openness to Expe rience -0.026 427 -0.121 0.069 0.594 Sick Leave Agreeableness 0.027 382 -0.073 0.127 0.597 On Site Performance Rating 2007 -0.030 287 -0.146 0.086 0.609 FPS Tenure Agreeableness -0.025 420 -0.120 0.071 0.613 On Site Pay Satisfaction 0.024 427 -0.071 0.119 0.623 Pay Satisfaction Conscientiousness -0.024 427 -0.118 0.071 0.624 Promotion Satisfaction Conscientious ness 0.021 427 -0.075 0.115 0.673 FPS Tenure Core self -0.020 420 -0.116 0.075 0.677 On Site People Satisfaction -0 .020 427 -0.115 0.075 0.678 On Site Agreeableness -0.020 427 -0.115 0.075 0.679 Years on Site People Satisfacti on 0.036 132 -0.135 0.206 0.679 Sick Leave Pay Satisfaction -0.021 382 -0.121 0.080 0.687 Base Pay Extraversion -0.018 420 -0.114 0.077 0.707 Years on Site Extraversion -0.032 132 -0.202 0.140 0.716 People Satisfaction Extraversion 0.016 427 -0.079 0.111 0.741 Work Satisfaction Openness to Experience 0.013 427 -0.082 0.108 0.784 Job in General Openness to Experien ce -0.013 427 -0.108 0.082 0.786 Base Pay Promotion Satisfactio n 0.012 420 -0.083 0.108 0.801 Annual Leave Performance Rating 2007 0.014 285 -0.103 0.130 0.820 Performance Rating 2008 Promotion Satisf action 0.012 291 -0.103 0.127 0.834 Annual Leave Openness to Experience -0.011 382 -0.111 0.090 0.835 On Site Conscientiousness -0.010 427 -0.105 0.085 0.837 Annual Leave Work Satisfaction -0.011 382 -0.111 0.090 0.838 Years on Site Agreeableness -0.017 132 -0.187 0.155 0.850 Years on Site Work Satisfaction 0.016 132 -0.155 0.187 0.852 Performance Rating 2009 Promotion Satisf action -0.009 335 -0.116 0.098 0.867 Performance Rating 2007 People Satisfact ion 0.010 287 -0.106 0.126 0.867 Sick Leave Extraversion -0.007 382 -0.108 0.093 0.888 People Satisfaction Openness to Experi ence 0.007 427 -0.088 0.102 0.890
93 Table A-1. Continued Performance Rating 2008 Openness to Expe rience 0.008 291 -0.107 0.123 0.894 Pay Satisfaction Neuroticism -0 .007 427 -0.101 0.089 0.894 Sick Leave Performance Rating 2008 0.007 290 -0.108 0.122 0.901 Years on Site Neuroticism 0.010 132 -0.161 0.181 0.908 Base Pay Sick Leave -0.003 382 -0.103 0.098 0.961 Sick Leave Openness to Experience -0.002 382 -0.102 0.099 0.975 FPS Tenure Openness to Experience 0.001 420 -0.095 0.097 0.985 Annual Leave Equity Preference 0.001 382 -0.100 0.101 0.989 Supervisor Satisfaction Extraversion 0.000 427 -0.095 0.095 1.000
94 APPENDIX B CRONBACH ALPHAS Table B-1. Cronbach alphas of variables Openness to Experience Plot alpha Entire set 0.7161 Tend to vote for conservative political candidates 0.7067 Have a vivid imagination 0.7227 Do not like art 0.6707 Believe in the importance of art 0.6622 Tend to vote for liberal political candidates 0.7001 Am not interested in abstract ideas 0.6874 Enjoy hearing new ideas 0.6963 Do not enjoy going to art museums 0.6817 Avoid philosophical discussions 0.6970 Carry the conversation to a higher level 0.7105 Conscientiousness Entire set 0.7887 Carry out my plans 0.7657 Pay attention to details 0.7733 Waste my time 0.7761 Shirk my duties 0.7866 Get chores done right away 0.7613 Do just enough work to get by 0.7767 Don't see things through 0.7644 Find it difficult to get down to work 0.7572 Make plans and stick to them 0.7668 Am always prepared 0.7751 Extraversion Entire set 0.8049 Keep in the background 0.7815 Feel comfortable around people 0.7832 Know how to captivate people 0.7798 Make friends easily 0.7842 Am skilled in handling social situations 0.7824 Am the life of the party 0.7799 Don't like to draw attention to myself 0.7915 Don't talk a lot 0.7865 Have little to say 0.7861 Would describe my experiences as somewhat dull 0.8195 Agreeableness Entire set 0.7300 Believe that others have good intentions 0.7220 Insult people 0.6992 Respect others 0.7109 Suspect hidden motives in others 0.7081 Accept people as they are 0.7144 Have a sharp tongue 0.6985 Cut others to pieces 0.6902 Have a good word for everyone 0.7120 Get back at others 0.7129 Make people feel at ease 0.7166
95 Table B-1. Continued Neuroticism Entire set 0.7951 Am often down in the dumps 0.7621 Am very pleased with myself 0.7825 Am not easily bothered by things 0.7906 Dislike myself 0.7731 Rarely get irritated 0.7933 Often feel blue 0.7515 Have frequent mood swings 0.7665 Panic easily 0.7812 Seldom feel blue 0.7891 Feel comfortable with myself 0.7803 Core self Entire set 0.8136 I am confident I get the success I deserve in life. 0.7978 Sometimes I feel depressed. 0.7967 When I try, I generally succeed. 0.8017 Sometimes when I fail I feel worthless. 0.7943 I complete tasks successfully. 0.8064 Sometimes, I do not feel in control of my work. 0.8116 Overall, I am satisfied with myself. 0.7922 I am filled with doubts about my competence. 0.7993 I determine what will happen in my life. 0.8098 I do not feel in control of my success in my career. 0.8006 I am capable of coping with most of my problems. 0.8011 There are times when thi ngs look pretty bleak and hopeless to me. 0.7863 Pay Entire set 0.8124 Income adequate for normal expenses 0.7886 Fair 0.7816 Bad 0.7781 Income provides luxuries 0.8148 Less than I deserve 0.7852 Well paid 0.7995 Barely live on income 0.7875 Insecure 0.8190 Underpaid 0.7824 Work on Present Job Entire set 0.8689 Fascinating 0.8646 Routine 0.8672 Satisfying 0.8550 Boring 0.8597 Good 0.8605 Gives sense of accomplishment 0.8600 Respected 0.8670 Uncomfortable 0.8720 Pleasant 0.8613 Useful 0.8634 Challenging 0.8587 Simple 0.8680 Repetitive 0.8685
96 Table B-1. Continued Creative 0.8579 Dull 0.8575 Uninteresting 0.8595 Can see results 0.8607 Uses my abilities 0.8578 Job in General Entire set 0.8590 Pleasant 0.8442 Bad 0.8555 Ideal 0.8599 Waste of time 0.8557 Good 0.8453 Undesirable 0.8503 Worthwhile 0.8481 Worse than most 0.8573 Acceptable 0.8518 Superior 0.8586 Better than most 0.8512 Disagreeable 0.8533 Makes me content 0.8442 Inadequate 0.8506 Excellent 0.8511 Rotten 0.8579 Enjoyable 0.8421 Poor 0.8557 Equity Preference Entire set 0.8275 I prefer to do as little as possible at work while getting as much as I can from my employer 0.8112 I am most satisfied at work when I have to do as little as possible 0.8113 When I am at my job, I think of ways to get out of work 0.8162 If I could get away with it, I would try to work just a little bit slower than the boss expects 0.8109 It is really satisfying to me when I ca n get something for nothing at work 0.8136 It is the smart employee who gets as much as he/she can while giving as little as possible in return 0.8226 Employees who are more concerned about what they can get from their employer rather than what they can gi ve to their employer are the wise ones 0.8170 When I have completed my task for the day, I help out other employees who have yet to complete their tasks 0.8273 Even if I received low wages and poor benefits from my employer, I would still try to do my best at my job 0.8146 If I had to work hard all day at my job, I would probably quit 0.8162 I feel obligated to do more than I am paid to do at work 0.8321 At work, my greatest concern is whether or not I am doing the best job I can 0.8229 A job which requires me to be busy during the day is better than a job which allows me a lot of loafing 0.8112 At work, I feel uneasy when there is little work for me to do 0.8287 I would become very dissatisfied with my job if I had little or no work to do 0.8213 All other things being equal, it is better to have a job with a lot of duties and responsibilities than one with few duties and responsibilities 0.8125
97 Table B-1. Continued Opportunities for Promotion Entire set 0.8903 Good opportunities for promotion 0.8638 Opportunities somewhat limited 0.8779 Promotion on ability 0.8818 Dead-end job 0.8862 Good chance for promotion 0.8639 Unfair promotion policy 0.8915 Infrequent promotions 0.8824 Regular promotions 0.8801 Fairly good chance for promotion 0.8730 Supervision Entire set 0.9071 Ask my advice 0.9034 Hard to please 0.9027 Impolite 0.8998 Praises good work 0.9008 Tactful 0.8990 Influential 0.9060 Up-to-date 0.9007 Doesn't supervise enough 0.9055 Has favorites 0.9028 Tells me where I stand 0.9031 Annoying 0.8992 Stubborn 0.9032 Knows job well 0.9015 Bad 0.9007 Intelligent 0.9035 Poor planner 0.9025 Around when needed 0.9019 Lazy 0.9033 People on Your Present Job Entire set 0.8989 Stimulating 0.8921 Boring 0.8938 Slow 0.8918 Helpful 0.8930 Stupid 0.8961 Responsible 0.8897 Fast 0.8972 Intelligent 0.8929 Easy to make enemies 0.8934 Talk too much 0.8980 Smart 0.8936 Lazy 0.8900 Unpleasant 0.8947 Gossipy 0.8949 Active 0.8921 Narrow interests 0.8909 Loyal 0.8928 Stubborn 0.8977
98 REFERENCES Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology Volume 67, Issue 5, Pages 422-436. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple Regr ession: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Allen, R.S. and White, C.S. (2002). Equity sensitivity theory: a test of res ponses to two types of under-reward situations, Journal of Managerial Issues Vol. 14, pp. 435-51. Andrews, I. R. (1967). Wage inequity a nd job performance: An experimental study. Journal of Applied Psychology 51, 39-45. Anderson, G. & Viswesveran, C. (1998). An update of the validity of personality scales in personnel selection: a meta-analysis of studies published after 1992. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Conference of the So ciety of Industrial and Orga nizational Psychology, Dallas. Anderson, M. (2010). Personality assessment in personnel selection. CPP, Inc., (June, 2010), Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/ 9657378/Personality-Assessment-in-PersonnelSelection Balzer, W. K., Kihm, J. A., Smith, P. C., Irwin, J. L ., Bachiochi, P. D., Robie, C., Sinar, E. F., & Parra, L. F. (2000). Users manual for the Job Descriptive Index (JDI; 1997 version) and the Job in General scales. In J. M. Stanton and C. D. Crossley (Eds.), Electronic resources for the JDI and JIG. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University. Barrick, M. R., & Mount M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology 44, 1-26. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the big five personality dime nsions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 111. Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K. & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance and the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? Personality and Performance Vol. 9, 9-30. Berger, G. (2009). Student interest in green jobs grows. The Dartmouth, Retrieved from http://thedartmouth.com/2009/04/09/news/green Berman, J. (2009). College students are flocking to sustainability degrees, careers. USA Today, Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/n ews/education/2009-0802-sustainabilitydegrees_N.htm
99 Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlate s: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 409-423. Bing, M. N. & Burroughs, S. M. (2001), The predictive and interactive effects of equity sensitivity in teamwork-oriented organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior 22: 271 290. Blakely, G. L., Andrews, M. C. & Moorman, R. H. (2005). The moderating effects of equity sensitivity on the relationship between organi zational justice and orga nizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology. Volume 20, Number 2, 259-273. Callaway, P. (2007) Relationship between organizatio nal trust and job satisfaction: An analysis in the United States federal work force. Dissertation Abstracts Inte rnational: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering. 67(9-B), 2007, 5452. Carrell, M. R. & Dittrich, J. E. (1976). Em ployee perceptions of fair treatment. Personnel Journal 55, 523-524. Clark, K. (2009). Federal jobs generate inte rest. The Harvard Crimson, Retrieved from http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2009/9/18/fe deral-jobs-generate-interest-on-the/ Cooper, R. & Payne, R. (1966). Extraversi on and some aspects of work behavior. Personnel Psychology. 29, 45-57. Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (2009).The Five-Factor Model and the NEO Inventories. Butcher, J. N. (Ed). Oxford handbook of personality assessment. Oxford library of psychology. (pp. 299-322). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press. xvii, 750 pp Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R.(1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., Glick, P. (2007). The BI AS map: behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality Social Psycholgy Apr. 92 (4) 631-48. Dick, R., Christ, O., Stellmacher, J., Wagner, U., Ahlswede, O., Grubba, C., Hauptmeier, M., Hhfeld, C., Moltzen, K., Tissi ngton, P., (2004) Should I Stay or Should I Go? Explaining Turnover Intentions with Organizational Id entification and Job Satisfaction British Journal of Management 15 (4), 351. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure : Emergence of the five factor model Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440. Dudley, K. M., Orvis, K. A., Lebiecki, J. E. and Cortina, J. M. (2006) A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Conscientiousness in the Pr ediction of Job Performance: Examining the
100 Intercorrelations and the Increm ental Validity of Narrow Traits. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91, No. 1, 40. Erdheim, J., Wang, M., & Zickar, M. J. (2006). Li nking the Big Five personality constructs to organizational commitment. Personality and Individual Differences 41, 959-970. Erez, A. & Judge, T. A. (2001). Relationship of co re self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 86, 1270-1279. Evers, W., Tomic, W. & Brouwers, A. (2005). Does equity sensitivity moderate the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and teacher burnout? Representative Research in Social Psychology. 28, 35-46. Farr, J. L. (1976). Incentive sc hedules, productivity and satisfac tion in work groups: A laboratory study. Organizational behavior and Human Performance 17 159-170. Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources. 1. Abnormal Social Psychology. 44:329-44 Fiske,S. T., Cuddy, A. J. & Glick, P. (2007) Univ ersal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences Volume 11, Issue 2, Pages 77-83 Foote, D. and Harmon, S. (2006) Measuring equity sensitivity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21, No. 2. pp. 90-108. Furnham, A., Petridesa, K.V., Jackson, C. J. and Cotter, T. (2002) Do pers onality factors predict job satisfaction? Personality and Individual Differences 33 1325. Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. In Wheeler (Ed.), Review of Personality and social psychology, Vol. 1, 141-165. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Goodman, P. S. & Friedman, A. (1968). An examin ation of the efeect of wage inequity in the hourly condition. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 3, 340-352. Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A. & Hair, E. C. (1996) Perceiving interpersonal conflict and reacting to it: the case for agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Apr;70(4):820-35. Greenberg, J. & Westcott, D,. R. (1983). Indebtedness as a mediator of reactions to aid. In J. D. Fisher, A. Nadler, & B. M. DePaulo (Eds.), New directions in helping. Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 85-122. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motiva tion through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250.
101 Huseman, R.C., Hatfield, J.D. and Miles, E.W. (1985). Test for individual perceptions of job equity: some preliminary findings. Perceptual and Motor Skills. Vol. 61, pp. 1055-64. Huseman, R.C., Hatfield, J.D. and Miles, E.W. (1987). A new perspective on equity theory: the equity sensitivity construct. Academy of Management Review Vol. 12, pp. 222-34. Igalens, J. and Roussel, P. (1999) A Study of the Relationships between Compensation Package, Work Motivation and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 1999 Dec Vol 20(7) 1003-1025 Jenkins, G. D. & Lawler, E. E. III (1981). Imp act of employee participation in pay plan development. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 28 111-128. Jensen-Campbell, L. A. & Graziano, W. G. (2001) Agreeableness as a Moderator of Interpersonal Conflict. Journal of Personality. Volume 69, Issue 2, pages 323. Johnson, J. A. (2005). Ascertaining the validity of individual protoc ols from web-based personality inventories. Journal of Research in Personality, 39 103-129. Judge, T. A. (2009). Core self-evaluations and work success. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 58-62. Judge, T. A. & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluati on traits---self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control and emotional stability---with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 86, 80-92. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. (2005). Core self-evalu ations and job and life satisfaction: The role of self -concordance and goal attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 257-268 Judge, T.A., Erez, A. & Bono, J.E. (1998). Th e power of being positive: The relationship between positive self-concept and job performance. Human Performance 11, 167-187. Judge, T.A., Erez, A., Bono, J.E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology 85, 237-249. Judge, T.A., Erez, A., Bono, J.E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The Core Self-Evaluations Scale (CSES): Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology 56, 303. Judge, T. A. & Heller, D. (2002, April). The di spositional sources of job satisfaction: An integrative test. In R. Ilies & T. A. Judge (Chairs), Dispositional influences on work-related attitudes. Symposium presentation at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Annual Meetings, Toronto. Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002) Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 87, 530-541.
102 Judge, T. A., Locke, E.A., & Durham, C.C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach Research in Organizational Behavior. 19, 151-188 Judge, T.A., Locke, E.A., Durham, C.C. & Kluger, A.N. (1998) Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology 83, 17-34. Judge, T. A., Martocchio, J. J., & Thoresen, C. J. (1997). Five-factor model of personality and employee absence Journal of Applied Psychology Vol. 82, No. 5. 745-755. Judge, T.A., Thorensen, C.J., Pucik, V., & Wel bourne, T.M. (1999) Managerial coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology 84, 107122. Judge, T. A., Van Vianen, A. E. M. & De Pater, I. E. (2004). Emotiona l stability, core selfevaluations, and job outcomes: A review of the evidence and an agenda for future research. Human Performance 17 (3), 325-346. Kickul, J., Gundry, L. K. & Posig, M. (2005). Does trust matter? The relationship between equity sensitivity and perceived organizational justice. Journal of Business Ethics. Volume 56, Number 3, 205-218 Kickul, J. & Lester, S. W. ( 2001) Broken promises: equity sensitivity as a moderator between psychological contract breech and employee attitudes and behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology. Vol. 16, No. 2. Pp. 191-217. King, W. C. & Hinson, T. D. (1994) The influence of sex and equity sensitivity on relationship preferences, assessment of opponent, and outcomes in a negotiation experiment. Journal of Management Volume 20, Issue 3, Pages 605-624 King, W. C. & Miles, E. W. (1994) Th e measurement of equity sensitivity. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 67, 133-142 King, W. C., Miles, E. W. & Day, D. D. (1993). A test and refinement of the equity sensitivity construct. Journal of Organizational Behavior 14, 133-142. Lawler, E. E., Mohrman, S. A., & Ledford, G. E. (1995) Creating high performance organizations: practices and results of employee involvement and total quality management in Fortune 1000 companies. San Francisco: Jossey-bass. Lefkowitz, J. (2000). The role of interpersonal affec tive regard in supervisory performance ratings: A literature review and proposed causal model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Volume 73, Number 1, pp. 67-85 Major, B., Bylsma, W. H. & Cozzarelli, C. ( 1989). Gender differences in distributive justice preferences: The impact of domain. Sex Roles. Volume 21, Numbers 7-8, 487-497
103 Martocchio, J. J. (1989). Age-re lated differences in employee absenteeism: A meta-analytic review. Psychology and Aging 4, 409-414. Miles, E W., Hatfield, J., D. & Huseman, R. C. (1989) The equity sensitivity construct: potential implications for worker performance. Journal of Management, 15, 581-588. Miles, E W., Hatfield, J., D. & Huseman, R. C. (1994) Equity sensitivity and outcome importance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 585-596. Mintu-Wimsatt, A. (2003), King and Miles eq uity sensitivity instrument: a cross-cultural validation, Psychological Reports Vol. 92, pp. 23-6. Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., Scullen, S. M. a nd Rounds, J. (2005) Higher-Order Dimensions of the Big Five Personality Traits and th e Big Six Vocational Interest Types. Personnel Psychology. Vol. 58, Iss. 2; pg. 447, 32 pgs Mount, M., Ilies, R. and Johnson, E., (2006) Relationship of personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors. Personnel Psychology; 59, 3; pg. 591 Mudrack, P. E., Mason, S. E., & Stepanski, K. M. (1999). Equity sensitiv ity and business ethics. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 539-560 Niblock, L.(2000) The Demographics of Job Sa tisfaction: A Florida Public Agency Study. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences. 60(9-A), Mar 2000, 3522. Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 66, 574-583. Occupational employment statis tics. (2009). Bureau of Labor Statistics, Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/oes/highlight_environment.htm Occupational outlook handbook (2011). Bureau of La bor Statistics, 2010-11 edition. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos048.htm ONeill, B. S. & Mone, M. A. (1998) Investigating equity sensitivity as a moderator of relations between self-efficacy an d workplace attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 83. 805816. Organ, D. and Ryan, K. (1995) A meta-analytic review of at titudinal and dispositional predictors of organizatio nal citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology Durham: Winter 1995. Vol. 48, Iss. 4; p. 775 (28 pages)
104 Petty, M M., McGhee, G. W. & Cavander, J. W. (1984) A meta-analysis of the relationship between inindividual job satisfa ction and individual performa nce. Academy of Managment Review. 9, 712-721. Pritchard, R. D., Dunnette, M. D. & Jorgenson, D. O. (1972). Effects of perceptions of equity and inequity on worker performance and satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology 56, 7594. Raudenbush, S.W., Bryk, A.S, & Congdon, R. (2009). HLM 6.08 for Windows [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc. Reeder, G. D., Kumar, S., Hesson-McInnis, M. S. & Trafimow, D. (2002) Inferences About the Morality of an Aggressor: Th e Role of Perceived Motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2002, Vol. 83, No. 4, 789 Rosnowski, M. (1989). An examination of the measurement properties of the Job Descriptive Index with experimental items. Journal of Applied Psychology. 75. pp. 805-814. Saari, L. and Judge T (2004) Employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Human Resource Management Volume 43, Issue 4, Date : Winter 2004, Pages: 395-407 Sauley, K. & Bedeian, A. (2000). Equity sensitivity: construction of a measure and examination of its psychometric properties. Journal of Management 26 (5) pp. 885-910. Scott, B. A. & Colquitt, J. A. (2007). Are or ganizational justice eff ects bounded by individual differences? An examination of equity sensit ivity, exchange ideology, and the big five. Group and Organizational Management 32, 3. 290-325. Shaw, J. D., Duffy, M. K., Jenkins Jr., D. G ., Gupta, N. (1999) Positive and negative affect, signal sensitivity, and pay satisfaction. Journal of Management Vol. 25, No.2, 189-206. Shore, T., Sy, T & Strauss, J. (2006). Leader responsiveness, equity sensitivity, and employee attitudes and behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology. Volume 21, Number 2, 227-241 Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European Community. Journal of Applied Psychology 82 30-43. Sauley, K. and Bedeian, A. (2000) Equity sensitivity: Constructi on of a measure and examination of its psychometric properties. Journal of Management Vol. 26, No. 5. Pages 885-910. Shaw, J. D., Duffy, M. K., Jenkins Jr., D. G ., Gupta, N. (1999) Positive and negative affect, signal sensitivity, and pay satisfaction. Journal of Management Vol. 25, No.2, 189-206. Schieman, S., & Glavin, P.. (2008) Trouble at the border: Gender, flexibility at work, and the work-home interface. Social Problems, 55(4), 590-611.
105 Shore, T. H. & Strauss, J. (2008). Measurement of equity sensitivity: A comparison of the equity sensitivity instrument and equity preference questionnaire. Psychological Reports 102, 64-78. Shore, T. Sy, T. & Strauss, J. (2006). Equity sensitivity and employee attitudes and behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology. 21, No. 2. 227-241. Shrivastava, A., Locke, E. A. & Judge, T. A. (2002). Dispositional causes of task satisfaction: The mediating role of chosen level of task complexity. In R. Ilies (chair) Core selfevaluations: New developments and research findings. Symposium presentation at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Ps ychology Annual Meetings, Toronto. Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M. & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally. 186 pgs. Spector, C. E. (1986). Perceive d control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations. 1005-1016. Spreitzer, G. M. (200 7). Empowerment. (2007). Encyclopedia of industrial and organizational psychology Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.. Telly, C. S., French, W. L. & Scott, W. G. ( 1971). The relationship of inequity to turnover among hourly workers. Administrative Science Quarterly 16, 164-171. Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N. & Rothstein, M. (199 1). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic revi ew. Personnel Psychology. 44. 703-742. Thompson, D. (1998) A study of equity sensitivity a nd its relationship to di stributive justice, job satisfaction, and pay satisfacti on in a team environment. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences. 58(8-A), Feb 1998, 3215. Thompson, C. A. & Prottas, D. J. (2005). Stress, satisfaction, and the work-family interface: A comparison of self-employed business owners, independents, and organizational employees. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 11, 366-378. Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurren t personality factors based on trait ratings. USAF ASD Tech. Rep. No. 61-97, Lackland Ai rforce Base, TX: U. S. Air Force. Valenzi, E. R. & Andrews, I. R. (1971) Effect of hourly overpay and underpay inequity when tested with a new induction procedure. Journal of Applied Psychology. 55, 22-27. Vogle, S. (2009). More young people lining up for government jobs. The Washington Post, Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/03/25/AR2009032503068.html
106 Wegge, J., Schmidt, K., Parkes, C., and Van Dick, R. (2007) 'Taking a Sickie': Job satisfaction and job involvement as intera ctive predictors of absentee ism in a public organization. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 80.1 (March 2007): p77(13). Wheeler, K. G. (2002). Cultural values in relation to equity sensitivity within and across cultures. Journal of Manage rial Psychology, Vol. 17 Iss: 7, pp.612 627. Williams, M. L., McDaniel, M. A. & Nguyen, N. (2006). A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of pay level satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology 91 No. 2, 392-413. Wojciszke, B. (1994). Multiple meanings of behavior: construing actions in terms of competence or morality. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. 67, 222 Wojciszke, B. Dowhyluk, M. & Jaworski, M. (1 998). Moral and competence-related traits: How do they differ? Polish Psychological Bulletin Vol. 29, No. 4 pp. 283-294.
107 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH In his mothers eyes, he could do no wrong. In his fathers eyes, he could do no right. He did not want to go to college, but since coll ege was funded, and a life of luxury was not, he wound up studying philosophy at College of Charleston. Being a creature of habit, he remained in college for the next 17 years. He received his 6th degree in the spring of 2011