Personality at work: From a static toward a dynamic and developmental perspective
Chair: Bart Wille (Ghent University) There is a long and successful history of personality research in the work context. Although originally this field departed from a strictly static view on personality, contemporary work has challenged this perspective and increasingly explores dynamic and developmental properties of personality in work and organizational settings. This symposium showcases three such examples, focusing on respectively (1) the consequences of acting counter to one’s trait level, (2) the meaning, relevance and assessment of intraindividual behavioral patterns, and (3) people’s personal evaluations of their personality trait levels at work.
Is it all in the eye of the Beholder? Examining the Affective Consequences of (Perceived) Counterdispositional Extraversion Evy Kuijpers (VUB) Although a majority of studies show that acting in a more extraverted way is beneficial for one's well-being, there are also indications that acting counterdispositionally is emotionally draining. In the current study we try to explain these discrepancies by comparing two existing conceptualizations of counterdispositional extraversion (one relative to the trait level and one relative to the average state level) and we introduce a novel conceptualization that taps into perceived counterdispositional extraversion. We collected a large ESM dataset from 187 participants who provided five daily ratings across a period of four weeks (N = 17,547). Results showed that for the existing conceptualizations of counterdispositional extraversion, higher state levels of extraversion related to higher levels of positive affect (PA) and lower levels of Negative Affect (NA). Findings for perceived counterdispositional extraversion revealed a different story, with people low on trait extraversion only experiencing increases in PA up to a certain point when acting more extraverted, and both introverts and extraverts having higher levels of NA when deviating from their typical behavior. Altogether, our findings show that acting in a more extraverted way is better for one’s well-being, on the understanding that subjective experiences of atypical behavior can be experienced as harmful.
Behavioral signatures in Situational Judgment Tests Theresa Leyens (VUB) Key to contextualized assessment is that it is particularly person x situation interactions rather than traits alone that hold important predictive information and consequently allow a more accurate prediction of future behavior. In the present paper, we provide a test of this idea by drawing on the theory of behavioral signatures (Mischel & Shoda, 1995). Specifically, we examine whether one’s unique pattern of behavior across a broad range of (standardized) SJT exercises – referred to as one’s behavioral signature – prospectively predicts final secondary education grades in Math, German, English as a foreign language, and grade point average (GPA) above and beyond trait levels. This is done by performing Criterion-Related Profile Analysis – a regression-based technique that is specifically developed to test the predictive validity of a profile or configuration of scores – on a 110-item SJT dataset. 255 participants were examined on 22 items of a facet of each of the Big Five dimensions, respectively. Patterns of Openness to ideas (a facet of Openness to experience) account for unique variance in predicting Math, German, and GPA. Results support the conceptual and predictive importance of assessing intraindividual patterns across exercises and call for more attention to assessment methods that allow capturing them.
Careless procrastinator or rigid perfectionist? Employees’ personality trait evaluations and experienced negative consequences Sofie Dupré (Ghent University) Organizational psychology increasingly acknowledges that employees can possess ‘too much’ of seemingly beneficial personality traits at work, referred to as the 'Too-much-of-a-good-thing’ effect (TMGT; Pierce & Aguinis, 2013). Employing a multi-method, multi-informant design with 734 employees and their 521 managers, the current study explored how employees personally evaluate their traits in relation to their workplace functioning. Specifically, traditional descriptive personality assessment was complemented with employees’ evaluations of their traits using the too little/too much scale (TLTM; Kaiser & Kaplan, 2005). Our investigation into key aspects of these evaluations reveal a high prevalence of employees perceiving their traits as ‘too little’ (30%) or ‘too much’ (42%), with varying Likert ratings being associated with ‘the right amount’. Moreover, thematic analysis shows that the negative consequences experienced from suboptimal trait levels extend beyond task performance, including well-being issues and interpersonal difficulties, with distinct patterns across traits. Finally, while the Likert scale is the better overall predictor of job performance, TLTM models capture substantial variance and reveal nuanced linear and curvilinear effects not identified by the Likert scale. Collectively, our results underscore the pervasive impact of the TMGT effect as perceived by employees, influencing diverse aspects of their workplace functioning.