For decades, there has been substantial research showing that ability tests effectively predict what people can do, but it is only in the last fifteen years that it has come to be generally accepted that personality is a useful predictor of what they will do. Much of this change in appreciation of the role of personality in predicting performance has been attributed to the application of the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality to personality-performance research. The FFM was developed on the basis of the lexical hypothesis, which states that it is advantageous for people to be able to accurately describe the behaviour of others, and therefore the most important dimensions of personality will be encoded in natural languages. An associated premise is that natural language descriptors refer to an individual's surface appearance or reputation (i.e., their observable behaviours), rather than the underlying processes or genotype of personality (i.e., people's cognitive and affective processing). This reasoning was used as the basis for most of the factor-analytical studies of personality descriptors within the English language, and one of the most robust factor solutions was the FFM. The FFM contains the personality dimensions Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience and Emotional Stability. Although the FFM continues to evolve, particularly in response to cross-cultural research, the five basic dimensions appear to be remarkably consistent, and at least the core of each of these has been identified in the first six or seven factors found in every language considered to date. Of the five factors, Conscientiousness has been the one most reliably associated with workplace performance. Workplace performance itself has undergone a major reconsideration over the last fifteen to twenty years. Prior to that time, formal job roles and responsibilities were typically considered the start and finish of performance, but formal job requirements are now recognised as only one aspect of performance, which is increasingly referred to as Task Performance. Task Performance tends to change substantially from job to job, but there are other aspects of job performance, most notably Citizenship Performance, which appear to be consistent in most jobs. Citizenship Performance includes activities undertaken by an employee which facilitate Task Performance, such as making greater effort, complying with rules and procedures, and assisting others. Whereas Task Performance appears to be closely related to an individual's abilities, Citizenship Performance was originally proposed as an aspect of performance which is influenced by attitudinal and personality variables. Thus it has been proposed that Citizenship Performance largely mediates the relationship between personality variables, such as Conscientiousness, and Task Performance. However, this predictors of performance model has previously only been investigated in workplace settings. Yet performance is a relevant construct not only within workplace settings, but also within academic settings. In addition, the FFM dimension of Conscientiousness has been observed to be a reliable predictor of academic performance, just as it is a reliable predictor of workplace performance. Within educational settings, performance is typically tied to assessment measures, such as marks and GPA, which appear to measure academic Task Performance. However, no previous research appears to have considered whether Citizenship Performance mediates the relationship between Conscientiousness and Task Performance within an academic setting. Study One of this dissertation was designed to test this proposition. Participants in this study were 175 students enrolled within an introductory management subject. Participants provided assessments of their own personality using the Mini-Markers (Saucier, 1994), while Citizenship Performance ratings were provided by students' peers, at the end of a three-week group project. The hand-scored version of the Computerised Adaptive Rating Scales (CARS: Borman, 1999; Coleman & Borman, 2000) was used to assess Citizenship, but unfortunately the three scales of the CARS did not demonstrate good internal reliability. Consequently, a factor analysis was conducted to establish a new scale using the CARS items. This new scale, which was labelled Active Support, used six of the twelve CARS items and had satisfactory internal reliability. It was observed that the resulting scores on this Citizenship Performance scale were positively correlated with both Conscientiousness and academic Task Performance (as measured by grades). As predicted, Citizenship Performance entirely mediated the relationship between Conscientiousness and academic Task Performance. Therefore, the results of Study One were consistent with the predictors of performance model. It was concluded that Citizenship Performance is an important component of performance within academic settings, just as it is within workplace settings. Despite the fact that the relationship between both workplace and academic performance, and Conscientiousness, is reliable and well-established, correlations between Conscientiousness and performance tend to be moderate at best. Previous research has observed that other-rated measures of Conscientiousness have higher correlations with academic performance than do self-rated measures. Consequently, Study Two explored whether other-rated Conscientiousness improved the prediction of academic Citizenship and Task Performance, using a similar design to that utilised in Study One. One hundred and twenty-two students participated in Study Two while undertaking the same course as the students who had participated in Study One. Most of the results of Study Two were consistent with expectations, but there were some unexpected outcomes. Other-rated Conscientiousness was found to be a significantly better predictor of both academic Task and Citizenship Performance than was self-rated Conscientiousness. However, contrary to previous ideas, the relationship between other-rated Conscientiousness and Task Performance was not mediated by Citizenship Performance. In contrast, it was observed that the correlation between other-rated Conscientiousness and other-rated Citizenship Performance was .61 if both ratings were obtained from the same raters, and .44 if the two ratings were obtained from independent raters. When corrected for measurement unreliability, these estimates approached unity, which is consistent with the idea that, for the other-raters, Conscientiousness and Citizenship Performance were measuring the same construct. However, this study had several limitations, including its small sample size, the use of an unusual measure for Citizenship Performance, and the fact that it had been conducted in an academic setting. Therefore, there was a need to replicate Study Two before accepting that Conscientiousness and Citizenship Performance are actually much more strongly associated than previous research has indicated. In order to replicate Study Two, while addressing some of its limitations, a third study was conducted within a workplace setting. In Study Three, general staff supervisors within a public university were asked to rate their staff on measures of both personality and Citizenship Performance. In addition to Active Support, the measure used in Studies One and Two, two additional measures were included, which assessed the aspects of Citizenship Performance referred to as Individual Initiative and Helping Behaviour. The FFM dimension of Agreeableness was also added, because previous research indicates that, while Conscientiousness may be a better predictor of Individual Initiative, Helping Behaviour should be more closely associated with the FFM dimension of Agreeableness. However, using multiple ratings derived from the same raters can create common method bias in correlations, and so, in line with previous recommendations (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003), Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was used to control for this. The resulting correlations confirmed that there were strong relationships between the measures of Citizenship Performance and personality. Helping Behaviour had a strong relationship with supervisor-rated Agreeableness (.81), while Individual Initiative was significantly correlated with supervisor-rated Agreeableness (.44) and supervisor-rated Conscientiousness (.32). Active Support had strong correlations with these measures of personality (.57 and .55 respectively). The results of Study Three indicate that, for the participating supervisors, the Helping Behaviour dimension of Citizenship Performance is largely the same as the Agreeableness dimension of personality. Unlike Study Two, Active Support appeared to be not so closely associated with Conscientiousness, but instead seemed to occupy a position halfway between other-rated Conscientiousness and other-rated Agreeableness. Individual Initiative occupies a similar position, but is not so closely linked to these other-rated personality variables. Although these results suggest that, when compared with the students in Study Two, the supervisors in Study Three had a slightly different view of Active Support, it remains clear that much or most of the variance in each of these measures of Citizenship Performance is accounted for by these other-rated measures of personality. In order to understand why the strength of the relationship between the other-rated personality dimensions of Conscientiousness and Agreeableness, and the performance construct of Citizenship Performance, has been overlooked by previous researchers, it was necessary to reconsider the basic reasons for disagreement in ratings. Agreement between raters tends to vary considerably, depending on who is rating whom. Self-other agreement on ratings is typically modest, other-other agreement tends to be higher, but alternate-form and test-retest agreement are typically higher still. The reasons for this appear to be related to the extent to which ratings are produced using similar observations, and integrating these in similar ways, as well as the extent to which ratings are affected by specific aspects of individual rater-ratee relationships. Previous research has provided estimates for these effects which can be used to correct correlations for resulting biases. When these are applied to correlations between ratings of measures, such as performance or personality, which are provided by different other-raters, these correlations approximate unity. This includes the correlations, reported in this dissertation, between other-rated personality and other-rated Citizenship Performance. In conclusion, the results of the research reported in this dissertation are consistent with the idea that measures of Citizenship Performance are largely accounted for by other-rated measures of Conscientiousness and Agreeableness. It is argued that this conclusion is consistent with the lexical hypothesis which underlay the development of the FFM, as well as with the theoretical basis for the construct of performance. The dissertation concludes with a discussion of the implications of this conclusion, for a range of fields, including understanding the relationship between personality and performance, methodological consequences for future research, and practical implications for staff selection and performance appraisal systems.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:ADTP/195406 |
| Date | January 2005 |
| Creators | Poropat, Arthur Eugene, n/a |
| Publisher | Griffith University. School of Applied Psychology |
| Source Sets | Australiasian Digital Theses Program |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Rights | http://www.gu.edu.au/disclaimer.html), Copyright Arthur Eugene Poropat |
Page generated in 0.0024 seconds