1932

Abstract

Extending interactionist principles and targeting situational specificity of trait–performance linkages, trait activation theory (TAT) posits personality traits are expressed as valued work behavior in response to trait-relevant situational cues, subject to constraints and other factors, all operating at the task, social, and organizational levels. Review of 99 key sources citing TAT spanning 2011–2019 reveals diverse applications (e.g., bidirectionality, trait specificity, team building) and an overall 60% significance rate for 262 TAT-based moderator effects reported in 60 of 75 empirical studies. Applying five key aspects of TAT (e.g., behavior/performance distinction, need-based motivation) to five lines of personality dynamics research (e.g., personality states, self-regulation models of motivation) supports TAT as a vehicle for advancing understanding of within-person variability over brief and extended timelines. Critical research needs include personality-oriented work analysis, longitudinal study of trait-situation processes, trait activation in teams, within-job bidirectionality, and situation relevance as a unifying principle in advancing person–workplace fit.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-062228
2021-01-21
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/orgpsych/8/1/annurev-orgpsych-012420-062228.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-062228&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Aarts H, Dijksterhuis A, Dik G 2008. Goal contagion: inferring goals from others’ actions—and what it leads to. Handbook of Motivation Science JY Shah, WL Gardner 265–80 New York: Guilford
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Acuna ST, Juristo N, Moreno AM 2006. Emphasizing human capabilities in software development. IEEE Comput. Soc. 23:294–101
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aguinis H, Edwards JR, Bradley KJ 2017. Improving our understanding of moderation and mediation in strategic management research. Organ. Res. Methods 20:4665–85
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Aguinis H, Mazurkiewicz MD, Heggestad ED 2009. Using web-based frame-of-reference training to decrease biases in personality-based job analysis: an experimental field study. Pers. Psychol. 62:2405–38
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Allport GW. 1951. Personality—A Psychological Interpretation London: Constable
  6. Barrick MR, Mount MK. 1991. The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Pers. Psychol. 44:1–26
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Barrick MR, Mount MK, Strauss JP 1993. Conscientiousness and performance of sales representatives: test of the mediating effects of goal setting. J. Appl. Psychol. 78:5715–22
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Barsade S, Coutifaris C, Pillemer J 2018. Emotional contagion in organizational life. Res. Organ. Behav. 38:137–51
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bass BM. 1985. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations New York: Free Press
  10. Benson A, Li D, Shue K 2019. Promotions and the Peter principle. Q. J. Econ. 134:42085–134
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bergman ME, Benzer JK, Kabins AH, Bhupatkar A, Panina D 2013. An event-based perspective on the development of commitment. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 23:2148–60
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bipp T, Kleinbeck U. 2011. The effect of neuroticism in the process of goal pursuit. Personal. Individ. Differ. 51:4454–59
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Blau PM. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life New York: Wiley
  14. Blickle G, Meurs JA, Wihler A, Ewen C, Plies A, Günther S 2013. The interactive effects of conscientiousness, openness to experience, and political skill on job performance in complex jobs: the importance of context. J. Organ. Behav. 34:81145–64
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bornstein RF. 2005. The dependent patient: diagnosis, assessment, and treatment. Prof. Psychol. Res. Pract. 36:182–89
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Bouckenooghe D, Raja U, Butt AN 2013. Combined effects of positive and negative affectivity and job satisfaction on job performance and turnover intentions. J. Psychol.: Interdiscip. Appl. 147:2105–23
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Bowers KS. 1973. Situationism in psychology: an analysis and a critique. Psychol. Rev. 80:307–36
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Campion MC, Ployhart RE. 2013. Assessing personality with situational judgement measures: interactionist psychology operationalized. See Christiansen & Tett 2013 439–56
  19. Carver CS, Scheier MF. 1990. Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: a control-process view. Psychol. Rev. 97:19–36
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Chen C-C, Chen MY-C, Liu Y-C 2013. Negative affectivity and workplace deviance: the moderating role of ethical climate. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 24:152894–910
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Choi D, Oh I-S, Colbert AE 2015. Understanding organizational commitment: a meta-analytic examination of the roles of the five-factor model of personality and culture. J. Appl. Psychol. 100:51542–67
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Christiansen NC, Hoffman BJ, Lievens F, Speer AB 2013. Assessment centers and the measurement of personality. See Christiansen & Tett 2013 477–97
  23. Christiansen NC, Sliter M, Frost CT 2014. What employees dislike about their jobs: relationship between personality-based fit and work satisfaction. Personal. Individ. Differ. 71:25–29
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Christiansen ND, Tett RP 2013. Handbook of Personality at Work New York: Routledge
  25. Connelly BS, Ones DS, Hulsheger UR 2017. Personality in industrial, work and organizational psychology: theory, measurement and application. The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology: Personnel Psychology and Employee Performance DS Ones, N Anderson, C Viswesvaran, HK Sinangil 320–65 London: SAGE
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Costa PT Jr, McCrae RR. 1988. From catalog to classification: Murray's needs and the five-factor model. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 55:2258–65
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Cruz S, da Silva FQB, Capretz LF 2015. Forty years of research on personality in software engineering: a mapping study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 46:94–113
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Dalal RS, Alaybek B, Lievens F 2020. Within-person job performance variability over short timeframes: theory, empirical research, and practice. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 7:421–49
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Dansereau F Jr, Graen G, Haga WJ. 1975. A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: a longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 13:46–78
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Dawis RV, Lofquist LH. 1975. Toward a psychological taxonomy of work. J. Vocat. Behav. 7:2165–71
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Dawis RV, Lofquist LH. 1976. Personality style and the process of work adjustment. J. Couns. Psychol. 23:155–59
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Dawis RV, Lofquist LH. 1984. A Psychological Theory of Work Adjustment Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
  33. De Fruyt F, De Clercq B 2014. Antecedents of personality disorder in childhood and adolescence: toward an integrative developmental model. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 10:449–76
    [Google Scholar]
  34. De Fruyt F, Mervielde I 1999. RIASEC types and Big Five traits as predictors of employment status and nature of employment. Pers. Psychol. 52:3701–27
    [Google Scholar]
  35. De Fruyt F, Wille B 2013. Cross-cultural issues in personality assessment. See Christiansen & Tett 2013 333–55
  36. Debusscher J, Hofmans J, De Fruyt F 2016. From state neuroticism to momentary task performance: a person × situation approach. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 25:189–104
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Deci E, Ryan RM. 2008. Self-determination theory: a macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Can. Psychol. 49:3182–85
    [Google Scholar]
  38. DeShon RP, Kozlowski SWJ, Schmidt AM, Milner KR, Wiechmann D 2004. A multiple-goal, multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual and team performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:61035–56
    [Google Scholar]
  39. DeYoung CG. 2006. Higher-order factors of the Big Five in a multi-informant sample. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 91:61138–51
    [Google Scholar]
  40. DeYoung CG. 2015. Cybernetic Big Five theory. J. Res. Personal. 56:33–58
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Dickman SJ. 1990. Functional and dysfunctional impulsivity: personality and cognitive correlates. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 58:95–102
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Diefendorff JM, Lord RG, Hepburn ET, Quickle JS, Hall RJ, Sanders RE 1998. Perceived self-regulation and individual differences in selected attention. J. Exp. Psychol.: Appl. 4:228–47
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Digman JM. 1997. Higher-order factors of the Big Five. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 73:61246–56
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Dimotakis N, Conlon DE, Ilies R 2012. The mind and heart (literally) of the negotiator: personality and contextual determinants of experiential reactions and economic outcomes in negotiation. J. Appl. Psychol. 97:1183–93
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Donovan JJ, Bateman T, Heggestad ED 2013. Individual difference in work motivation. See Christiansen & Tett 2013 101–28
  46. Driskell JE, Goodwin GE, Salas E, O'Shea PG 2006. What makes a good team player? Personality and team effectiveness. Group Dyn 10:249–71
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Driskell JE, Salas E. 2013. Personality and work teams. See Christiansen & Tett 2013 744–71
  48. Ekehammar B. 1974. Interactionism in personality from a historical perspective. Psychol. Bull. 81:1026–48
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Endler NS, Magnusson D. 1976. Toward an interactional psychology of personality. Psychol. Bull. 83:956–74
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Epstein S. 1979. The stability of behavior: I. On predicting most of the people much of the time. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 37:1097–126
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Eysenck HJ, Eysenck MW. 1985. Personality and Individual Differences: A Natural Science Approach New York: Plenum Press
  52. Farh CICC, Seo M-G, Tesluk PE 2012. Emotional intelligence, teamwork effectiveness, and job performance: the moderating role of job context. J. Appl. Psychol. 97:4890–900
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Farmer SM, Van Dyne L 2010. The idealized self and the situated self as predictors of employee work behaviors. J. Appl. Psychol. 95:503–16
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Fleeson W. 2004. Moving personality beyond the person–situation debate: the challenge and the opportunity of within-person variability. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Res. 13:83–87
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Fleeson W. 2012. Perspectives on the person: rapid growth and opportunities for integration. The Oxford Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology K Deaux, M Snyder 33–63 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Fleeson W, Jayawickreme E. 2015. Whole trait theory. J. Res. Personal. 56:82–92
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Fleeson W, Law MK. 2015. Trait enactments as density distributions: the role of actors, situations, and observers in explaining stability and variability. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 109:61090–104
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Fulmer IS, Walker WJ. 2015. More bang for the buck? Personality traits as moderators of responsiveness to pay-for-performance. Hum. Perform. 28:140–65
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Funder DC. 2012. Accurate personality judgement. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 21:3177–82
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Gardner TM. 2005. Interfirm competition for human resources: evidence from the software industry. Acad. Manag. J. 48:2237–56
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Goffin RD, Rothstein MG, Rieder MJ, Poole A, Krajewski HT et al. 2011. Choosing job-related personality traits: developing valid personality-oriented job analysis. Personal. Individ. Differ. 51:5646–51
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Gottfredson GD. 1977. Career stability and redirection in adulthood. J. Appl. Psychol. 62:4436–45
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Gouldner AW. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. Am. Sociol. Rev. 25:161–78
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Greenbaum RL, Hill A, Mawritz MB, Quade MJ 2017. Employee Machiavellianism to unethical behavior: the role of abusive supervision as a trait activator. J. Manag. 43:2585–609
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Guion RM, Gottier RF. 1965. Validity of personality measures in personnel selection. Pers. Psychol. 18:135–64
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Haaland S, Christiansen NC. 2002. Implications of trait‐activation theory for evaluating the construct validity of assessment center ratings. Pers. Psychol. 55:1137–63
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Hansen JC. 2013. A person–environment fit approach to cultivating meaning. Purpose and Meaning in the Workplace BJ Dik, ZS Byrne, MF Steger 37–55 Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Harari MB, Rudolph CW, Laginess AJ 2015. Does rater personality matter? A meta‐analysis of rater Big Five–performance rating relationships. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 88:2387–414
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Harris AM, Siedor LE, Fan Y, Listyg B, Carter NT 2016. In defense of the situation: an interactionist explanation for performance on situational judgment tests. Ind. Organ. Psychol.: Perspect. Sci. Pract. 9:123–28
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Haynie JJ. 2012. Core-self evaluations and team performance: the role of team–member exchange. Small Group Res 43:3315–29
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Heidemeier H, Bittner JV. 2012. Competition and achievement goals in work teams. Hum. Perform. 25:2138–58
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Hirst G, Van Knippenberg D, Chen C-H, Sacramento CA 2011. How does bureaucracy impact individual creativity? A cross-level investigation of team contextual influences on goal orientation–creativity relationships. Acad. Manag. J. 54:3624–41
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Ho VT, Gupta N. 2012. Testing an empathy model of guest‐directed citizenship and counterproductive behaviours in the hospitality industry: findings from three hotels. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 85:3433–53
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Holland JL. 1996. Exploring careers with a typology: what we have learned and some new directions. Am. Psychol. 51:4397–406
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Holland JL. 1997. Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Vocational Personalities and Work Environments Odessa, FL: Psychol. Assess. Resour. , 3rd ed..
  76. Holtschlag C, Morales CE, Masuda AD, Maydeu-Olivares A 2013. Complementary person–culture values fit and hierarchical career status. J. Vocat. Behav. 82:2144–53
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Hooker K, McAdams DP. 2003. Personality reconsidered: a new agenda for aging research. J. Gerontol. B. 58:6296–304
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Hough LM, Ones DS, Viswesvaran C 1998. Personality correlates of managerial performance constructs Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Dallas: April 24–26
  79. Hoyle R. 2006. Personality and self-regulation: trait and information-processing perspectives. J. Personal. 74:61507–26
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Humphrey SE, Nahrgang JD, Morgeson FP 2007. Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: a meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:51332–56
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Hunter JE, Schmidt FL, Judiesch MK 1990. Individual differences in output variability as a function of job complexity. J. Appl. Psychol. 75:128–42
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Hurtz GM, Donovan JJ. 2000. Personality and job performance: the Big Five revisited. J. Appl. Psychol. 85:6869–79
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Judge TA, Higgins CA, Thoresen CJ, Barrick MR 1999. The Big Five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Pers. Psychol. 52:3621–52
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Judge TA, Zapata CP. 2015. The person–situation debate revisited: effect of situation strength and trait activation on the validity of the Big Five personality traits in predicting job performance. Acad. Manag. J. 58:41149–70
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Jung Y, Takeuchi N. 2014. Relationships among leader–member exchange, person–organization fit and work attitudes in Japanese and Korean organizations: testing a cross-cultural moderating effect. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 25:123–46
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Kanfer R, Heggestad ED. 1997. Motivation traits and skills: a person-centered approach to work motivation. Res. Organ. Behav. 19:1–56
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Kelley HH, Thibaut JW. 1978. Inter-Personal Relations: A Theory of Interdependence New York: John Wiley & Sons
  88. Kholin M, Meurs JA, Blickle G, Wihler A, Ewen C, Momm TD 2016. Refining the openness–performance relationship: construct specificity, contextualization, social skill, and the combination of trait self- and other-ratings. J. Personal. Assess. 98:3277–88
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Klehe U-C, Kleinmann M, Nieß C, Grazi J 2014. Impression management behavior in assessment centers: Artificial behavior or much ado about nothing. ? Hum. Perform. 27:11–24
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Kristof AL. 1996. Person–organization fit: an integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Pers. Psychol. 49:1–49
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Kristof-Brown AL, Guay RP. 2010. Person–environment fit. APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. III: Maintaining, Expanding, and Contracting the Organization S Zedeck 3–50 Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Lee S, Yoo Y, Yun S 2015. Sharing my knowledge? An interactional perspective. J. Manag. Psychol. 30:8986–1002
    [Google Scholar]
  93. LePine JA, Buckman BR, Crawford ER, Methot JR 2011. A review of research on personality in teams: accounting for pathways spanning levels of theory and analysis. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 21:4311–30
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Lewin K. 1936. Principles of Topological Psychology New York: McGraw-Hill
  95. Li N, Harris TB, Boswell WR, Xie Z 2011. The role of organizational insiders’ developmental feedback and proactive personality on newcomers’ performance: an interactionist perspective. J. Appl. Psychol. 96:61317–27
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Lievens F, Chasteen CS, Day EA, Christiansen ND 2006. Large‐scale investigation of the role of trait activation theory for understanding assessment center convergent and discriminant validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:247–58
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Lievens F, Lang JWB, De Fruyt F, Corstjens J, Van de Vijver M, Bledow R 2018. The predictive power of people's intraindividual variability across situations: implementing whole trait theory in assessment. J. Appl. Psychol. 103:7753–71
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Lievens F, Schollaert E, Keen G 2015. The interplay of elicitation and evaluation of trait‐expressive behavior: evidence in assessment center exercises. J. Appl. Psychol. 100:1169–88
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Lievens F, Tett RP, Schleicher DJ 2009. Assessment centers at the crossroads: toward a reconceptualization of assessment center exercises. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management JJ Martocchio, H Liao 99–152 Bingley, UK: JAI Press
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Liguori EW, McLarty BD, Muldoon J 2013. The moderating effect of perceived job characteristics on the proactive personality–organizational citizenship behavior relationship. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 34:8724–40
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Lippitt GL, Schmidt WH. 1967. Crises in a developing organization. Harv. Bus. Rev. 45:6102–12
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Liu Y, Wang M, Chang CH, Shi J, Zhou L, Shao R 2015. Work–family conflict, emotional exhaustion, and displaced aggression toward others: the moderating roles of workplace interpersonal conflict and perceived managerial family support. J. Appl. Psychol. 100:3793–808
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Locke EA, Latham GP. 1990. A Theory of Goal-Setting and Task Performance Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
  104. Lord RG, Brown DJ. 2004. Leadership Processes and Follower Self-Identity Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
  105. Lord RG, Diefendorff JM, Schmidt AM, Hall RJ 2010. Self-regulation at work. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 61:543–68
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Lykourentzou I, Antoniou A, Naudet Y, Dow SP 2016. Personality matters: Balancing personality types leads to better outcomes for crowd teams. Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing260–73 San Francisco: CSCW
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Magnusson D, Endler NS. 1977. Personality at the Crossroads: Current Issues in Interactional Psychology Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
  108. McLeod PL, Liu Y-C, Axline JE 2014. When your second life comes knocking: effects of personality on changes to real life from virtual world experiences. Comput. Hum. Behav. 39:59–70
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Melchers KC, Wirz A, Kleinmann M 2012. Dimensions AND exercises: theoretical background of mixed-model assessment centers. The Psychology of Assessment Centers DJR Jackson, CE Lance, BJ Hoffman 237–54 Abingdon, UK: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Meyer RD, Dalal RS, José IJ, Hermida R, Chen TR et al. 2014. Measuring job-related situational strength and assessing its interactive effects with personality on voluntary work behavior. J. Manag. 40:41010–41
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Minbashian A, Wood RE, Beckmann N 2010. Task-contingent conscientiousness as a unit of personality at work. J. Appl. Psychol. 95:793–806
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Mischel W, Shoda Y. 1995. A cognitive–affective system theory of personality: reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychol. Rev. 102:246–68
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Morf CC. 2006. Personality reflected in a coherent idiosyncratic interplay of intra- and interpersonal self-regulatory processes. J. Personal. 74:61527–56
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Morf CC, Rhodewalt F. 1993. Narcissism and self-evaluation maintenance: explorations in object relations. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 19:668–76
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Munyon TP, Summers JK, Thompson KM, Ferris GR 2015. Political skills and work outcomes: a theoretical extension, meta-analytic investigation, and agenda for the future. Pers. Psychol. 68:143–84
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Murphy KR. 1989. Is the relationship between cognitive ability and job performance stable over time. ? Hum. Perform. 2:3183–200
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Murray HA. 1938. Explorations in Personality New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  118. Neal A, Yeo G, Koy A, Xiao T 2012. Predicting the form and direction of work role performance from the Big 5 model of personality traits. J. Organ. Behav. 33:2175–92
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Ng TWH, Eby LT, Sorensen KL, Feldman DC 2005. Predictors of objective and subjective career success: a meta-analysis. Pers. Psychol. 58:367–408
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Oh I, Charlier SD, Mount MK, Berry CM 2014. The two faces of high self‐monitors: chameleonic moderating effects of self‐monitoring on the relationships between personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors. J. Organ. Behav. 35:192–111
    [Google Scholar]
  121. O'Neill TA, Goffin RD, Rothstein M 2013. Personality and the need for personality-oriented work analysis. See Christiansen & Tett 2013 226–52
  122. Parrigon S, Woo SE, Tay L, Wang T 2017. CAPTION-ing the situation: a lexically-derived taxonomy of psychological situation characteristics. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 112:642–81
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Peter LJ, Hull R. 1969. The Peter Principle: Why Things Always Go Wrong New York: William Morrow & Co.
  124. Rauthmann JF, Gallardo-Pujol D, Guillaume EM, Todd E, Nave CS et al. 2014. The Situational Eight DIAMONDS: a taxonomy of major dimensions of situation characteristics. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 107:677–718
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Raymark PH, Shmit MJ, Guion RM 1997. Identifying potentially useful personality constructs for employee selection. Pers. Psychol. 50:723–36
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Roberts BW, Chernyshenko OS, Stark S, Goldberg LR 2005. The structure of conscientiousness: an empirical investigation based on seven major personality questionnaires. Pers. Psychol. 58:103–39
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Rojon C, McDowall A, Saunders MNK 2015. The relationships between traditional selection assessments and workplace performance criteria specificity: a comparative meta-analysis. Hum. Perform. 28:11–25
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Rothstein MG, Goffin RD. 2006. The use of personality measures in personnel selection: What does current research support. ? Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 16:2155–80
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Runhaar P, Konermann J, Sanders K 2013. Teachers’ organizational citizenship behaviour: considering the roles of their work engagement, autonomy and leader–member exchange. Teach. Teach. Educ. 30:99–108
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Salas E, Dickenson T, Converse SA, Tannenbaum SI 1992. Toward an understanding team performance and training. Teams: Their Training and Performance RW Swezey, E Salas 3–29 Norwood, NJ: Ablex
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Schmidt FL, Hunter JE, Pearlman K, Shane GS 1979. Further tests of the Schmidt–Hunter Bayesian validity generalization procedure. Pers. Psychol. 32:2257–81
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Schmidt JA, Ogunfowora B, Bourdage JS 2012. No person is an island: the effects of group characteristics on individual trait expression. J. Organ. Behav. 33:7925–45
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Schneider B. 1987. The people make the place. Pers. Psychol. 40:437–53
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Schneider B, Goldstein HW, Smith DB 1995. The ASA framework: an update. Pers. Psychol. 48:747–73
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Schneider B, Smith DB, Taylor S, Fleenor J 1998. Personality and organizations: a test of the homogeneity of personality hypothesis. J. Appl. Psychol. 83:462–70
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Seijts GH, Latham GP, Tasa K, Latham BW 2004. Goal setting and goal orientation: an integration of two different yet related literatures. Acad. Manag. J. 47:2227–39
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Seo MG, Barett LF, Bartunek JM 2004. The role of affective experience in work motivation. Acad. Manag. Rev. 29:3423–39
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Shah JY, Friedman R, Kruglanski AW 2002. Forgetting all else: on the antecedents and consequences of goal shielding. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 83:1261–80
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Shaw JD, Park TY, Kim Y 2013. A resource-based perspective on human capital losses, HRM investments, and organizational performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 34:572–89
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Simonet DV, Tett RP, Foster J, Angelback AI, Bartlett JM 2017. Dark-side personality trait interactions: amplifying negative predictions of leadership performance. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 25:2233–50
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Simpson JR, Snyder AZ, Gusnard DA, Raichle ME 2001. Emotion-induced changes in human medial prefrontal cortex: I. During cognitive task performance. PNAS 98:2683–87
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Smillie LD. 2013. Why does it feel good to act like an extravert. ? Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 7:12878–87
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Smith KG, Mitchell TR, Summer CE 1985. Top level management priorities in different stages of the organizational life cycle. Acad. Manag. J. 28:4799–820
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Sullivan BA, Hansen JC. 2004. Mapping associations between interests and personality: toward a conceptual understanding of individual differences in vocational behavior. J. Couns. Psychol. 51:3287–98
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Sung SY, Choi JN, Kim-Jo T 2014. Personality dissimilarity and work-related outcomes: asymmetric effects and moderating role of group tenure. Group Dyn.: Theory Res. Pract. 18:11–19
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Sy T, Choi JN. 2013. Contagious leaders and followers: exploring multi-stage mood contagion in a leader activation and member propagation (LAMP) model. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Processes. 122:127–40
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Tett RP, Burnett DB. 2003. A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 88:500–17
    [Google Scholar]
  148. Tett RP, Christiansen ND. 2007. Personality tests at the crossroads: a response to Morgeson, Campion, Dipboye, Hollenbeck, Murphy, and Schmitt (2007). Pers. Psychol. 60:967–93
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Tett RP, Fisher D. 2020. Personality dynamics in the workplace: an overview of emerging literatures and future research needs. Handbook of Personality Dynamics and Processes JF Rauthmann Cambridge, MA: Acad. Press. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  150. Tett RP, Guterman HA. 2000. Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: testing a principle of trait activation. J. Res. Personal. 34:397–423
    [Google Scholar]
  151. Tett RP, Jackson DN, Rothstein M 1991. Personality measures as predictors of job performance: a meta-analytic review. Pers. Psychol. 44:703–42
    [Google Scholar]
  152. Tett RP, Jackson DN, Rothstein M, Reddon JR 1994. Meta-analysis of personality–job performance relations: a reply to Ones, Mount, Barrick, and Hunter (1994). Pers. Psychol. 47:1157–72
    [Google Scholar]
  153. Tett RP, Jackson DN, Rothstein M, Reddon JR 1999. Meta-analysis of bi-directional relations in personality–job performance research. Hum. Perform. 12:1–29
    [Google Scholar]
  154. Tett RP, Murphy PJ. 2002. Personality and situations in co-worker preference: similarity and complementarity in co-worker compatibility. J. Bus. Psychol. 17:223–43
    [Google Scholar]
  155. Tett RP, Simonet DV, Walser B, Brown C 2013. Trait activation theory: applications, further developments, and implications for workplace fit. See Christiansen & Tett 2013 71–100
  156. Thoresen CJ, Bradley JC, Bliese PD, Thoresen JD 2004. The Big Five personality traits and individual job performance: growth trajectories in maintenance and transitional job stages. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:5835–53
    [Google Scholar]
  157. Tupes EC, Christal RC. 1958. Stability of personality trait rating factors obtained under diverse conditions. USAF Wright Air Development Center Technical Note58–61
    [Google Scholar]
  158. Van Hoye G, Turban DB 2015. Applicant–employee fit in personality: testing predictions from similarity–attraction theory and trait activation theory. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 23:3210–23
    [Google Scholar]
  159. Vancouver JB, Day DV. 2005. Industrial and organisation research on self-regulation: from constructs to applications. Appl. Psychol.: Int. Rev. 54:2155–85
    [Google Scholar]
  160. Vancouver JB, Tischner EC. 2004. The effect of feedback sign on task performance depends on self-concept discrepancies. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:61092–98
    [Google Scholar]
  161. VandeWalle D. 1997. Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 57:6995–1015
    [Google Scholar]
  162. Wang H, Begley T, Hui C, Lee C 2012. Are the effects of conscientiousness on contextual and innovative performance context specific? Organizational culture as a moderator. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 23:1174–89
    [Google Scholar]
  163. Weiss HM, Adler S. 1984. Personality and organizational behavior. Res. Organ. Behav. 6:1–50
    [Google Scholar]
  164. Wille B, Beyers W, De Fruyt F 2012. A transactional approach to person–environment fit: reciprocal relations between personality development and career role growth across young to middle adulthood. J. Vocat. Behav. 81:3307–21
    [Google Scholar]
  165. Wille B, De Fruyt F 2014. Vocations as a source of identity: reciprocal relations between Big Five personality traits and RIASEC characteristics over 15 years. J. Appl. Psychol. 99:262–81
    [Google Scholar]
  166. Wille B, Hofmans J, Feys M, De Fruyt F 2014. Maturation of work attitudes: correlated change with Big Five personality traits and reciprocal effects over 15 years. J. Organ. Behav. 35:507–29
    [Google Scholar]
  167. Witt LA. 2002. The interactive effects of extraversion and conscientiousness on performance. J. Manag. 28:835–51
    [Google Scholar]
  168. Witt LA, Andrews MC, Carlson DS 2004. When conscientiousness isn't enough: emotional exhaustion and performance among call center customer service representatives. J. Manag. 30:149–60
    [Google Scholar]
  169. Woods SA, Lievens F, De Fruyt F, Wille B 2013. Personality across working life: the longitudinal and reciprocal influences of personality on work. J. Organ. Behav. 34:Suppl. 1S7–25
    [Google Scholar]
  170. Xu L, Fu P, Xi Y, Zhang L, Zhao X et al. 2014. Adding dynamics to a static theory: how leader traits evolve and how they are expressed. Leadersh. Q. 25:61095–119
    [Google Scholar]
  171. Zhao H, Seibert SE. 2006. The Big Five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: a meta-analytical review. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:2259–71
    [Google Scholar]
  172. Zimmerman RD. 2008. Understanding the impact of personality traits on individuals’ turnover decisions: a meta-analytic path model. Pers. Psychol. 61:309–48
    [Google Scholar]
  173. Zyphur MJ, Chaturvedi S, Arvey RD 2008. Job performance over time is a function of latent trajectories and previous performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 93:1217–24
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-062228
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-062228
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error