Download Personality Expression in Teams: Trait Activation & Coworker Preference and more Study notes Psychology in PDF only on Docsity!
Who Prefers to Work with Whom?
Trait Activation in Classroom Teams
Michael G. Anderson & Robert P. Tett University of Tulsa
Presented at the 21st^ Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, May, 2006, Dallas, TX. Send correspondence to robert-tett@utulsa.edu
Abstract
Trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003) predicts that individuals should prefer working with others offering cues for trait expression. Working in 3- to 6-member teams, 43 undergraduates completed a personality questionnaire and rated preference in working with each other on class projects, yielding 294 unique rater-ratee pairs. Significant rater-ratee trait interactions were obtained in 12 of 36 pairwise combinations of achievement, affiliation, autonomy, dominance, abasement, and defendence (e.g., rater affiliation by ratee dominance), with 9 of 20 hypothesized directional effects significant ( p < .05). Results suggest a chain reaction of trait activation: team tasks activate ratee achievement, affiliation, and dominance, whose expressions trigger raters' trait-based reactions. Affiliative ratees were preferred by raters with abrasive traits (e.g., high defendence), suggesting that people seek coworkers offering cues to express desirable traits and avoid those provoking expression of undesirable traits. Numerous complexities involving trait expression at work offer directions for future research.
[150 words]
Who Prefers to Work With Whom? Trait Activation in Classroom Teams
Organizations are increasingly relying on work teams to perform critical operations (Devine, Clayton, Philips, Dunford, & Melner, 1999; Morgan, Salas, & Glickman, 2001), making team building and group dynamics important targets of research. Personality offers one approach to studying interpersonal processes within teams. Team members’ traits (e.g., Extraversion), for example, have been found to influence team outcomes through the task and socioemotional inputs of individual members (Barry & Stewart, 1997). In addition, team composition regarding Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Extraversion, and Emotional Stability has been reported to influence team performance and viability (Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998). Personality is clearly involved in team functioning, but the precise mechanisms are far from clear.
Kichuk and Wiesner (1998) identified three ways that personality can contribute to team success: (1) identification of individuals who can work as a part of a team, (2) prediction of team members’ success in particular team roles, and (3) optimization in the compatibility of team members’ personalities. Drawing from trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003; Tett & Guterman, 2000; Tett & Murphy, 2002), the current study targeted the third, and most ambitious, of these possibilities. Specifically, we sought to clarify how team members’ personality traits interact to influence coworker preference.
Personality and Workplace Outcomes
Decades of research support linkages between personality and important workplace criteria. Meta-analyses diverse in method and scope converge in their overall support for personality-job performance linkages (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hogan & Holland, 2003; Hough, Eaton, & Dunnette, 1990; Huffcutt, Conway, Roth, & Stone, 2001; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991; Tett, Jackson, Rothstein, & Reddon, 1999). Meta-analysis has also demonstrated notable relationships between four of the Big Five traits (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness) and job satisfaction (estimated true correlations = -.29, .25, .17, and .26; respectively). Absenteeism has been reported to be positively related to Extraversion (e.g., Furnham & Miller, 1997; Judge, Martocchio, & Thoresen, 1997) and negatively to Conscientiousness (e.g., Hattrup, O’Connell, & Wingate, 1998; Judge et al., 1997). Collectively, these findings suggest that personality effects on individual-level workplace outcomes are quite broad in scope.
Personality is also related to group cohesion (e.g., Barrick et al., 1998; Dryer & Horowitz, 1997; Dyce & O’Connor, 1992; Morse & Caldwell, 1979), which is important because cohesion is positively related to group performance (Evans & Dion, 1991; Mullen & Cooper, 1994), organizational citizenship (Kidwell, Mossholder, & Bennett, 1997), and organizational commitment (Yoon, Ko, & Baker, 1994); and it is negatively related to role uncertainty and absenteeism (Zaccaro, 1991). How personality relates to cohesion, however, has varied. Morse and Caldwell (1979) argued that similarity in personality traits increases individuals’ satisfaction with their work group. Dyce and O’Connor (1992) and Dryer and Horowitz (1997), on the other hand, found that
personality traits, such that, when those traits are expressed, job demands are met, yielding high performance, satisfaction, and other positive outcomes. With respect to organizations at the broadest level, ASA works because climates and cultures specific to a given organization offer opportunities for the expression of certain traits. People who have those traits are especially attracted to the organization, are selected into it because expression of the targeted traits is positively valued, and are rejected if valued traits are not expressed.
The current investigation targeted trait activation processes operating at the social level, that is, in a team context. More specifically, we tested whether trait activation is related to coworker preference. The main idea here is that one worker’s trait expression offers cues for others to express their traits. If trait expression is intrinsically rewarding, coworkers ought to prefer one another to the degree that each offers opportunities for the other to express his or her traits. Cohesion, in this light, results from mutual trait activation. Below, the distinction between supplementary and complementary fit is reviewed, as well as previous trait activation research, as foundations for testable hypotheses in the current undertaking.
Supplementary Versus Complementary Fit
Muchinsky and Monohan (1987) identified two types of person-environment congruence. Supplementary fit occurs when individuals “possess characteristics similar to others in the environment” (p. 269), and complementary fit occurs when an individual's traits “complement the characteristics of an environment” (p.271). In terms of trait activation, supplementary fit arises from similarity in personality characteristics and complementary fit arises from dissimilar personality traits that fulfill mutual needs. Personality can thus enhance interpersonal attraction through either or both types of fit. The distinction may help explain why interpersonal attraction has been linked in some cases to personality similarity and in other cases to dissimilarity.
The supplementary/complementary distinction is a key part of circumplex models of personality, which, like trait activation theory, hold that individuals have an inherent desire to express their personality traits (Bakan, 1966, Wiggins & Trobst, 1997). In circumplex models, the two most basic drives are for agency (e.g., status, power) and communion (e.g., love, companionship; Bakan, 1966). Interpersonal traits are mapped onto a circle with a horizontal communion axis and a vertical agency axis. Similarity congruency is expected along the communion axis, and complementary congruence along the agency axis (Carson, 1969; Kiesler, 1983). Thus, two people will be compatible if similar on a communion trait, and/or where one is high and the other low on an agentic trait.
Research has offered some support for circumplex models, but the mechanisms underlying expectations of supplementary versus complementary compatibility are vague. Trait activation offers a common link. Specifically, in both cases, one person's trait expression offers cues for the other person to express his or her traits. In the case of communion traits, one person's friendliness (e.g., as an expression of affiliation) is an
invitation for a similar other to respond in kind. In the case of agency traits, one person's dominance, for example, is an invitation for someone low on autonomy to express his or her submissiveness, which, in turn, invites dominance. The principle of mutual trait activation extends beyond circumplex notions, however, encouraging consideration of compatibility involving diverse trait combinations. Results from previous studies of trait activation offer some examples, as discussed below.
Previous Trait Activation Research
Tett and Guterman (2000) introduced trait activation theory by showing how trait expression as behavioral intentions relates to trait-relevant situational cues. Participants completed a personality inventory and were asked how they would respond to each of 50 scenarios varying in trait-relevance (10 scenarios for each of 5 traits). Results showed that trait-intention correlations were stronger in scenarios judged independently to offer greater opportunity for trait expression. Moreover, cross- situational consistency in intentions was higher when situations were jointly high in trait- relevance.
Tett and Murphy (2002) applied trait activation theory to a study of coworker preference based on "paper people." Participants completed a personality inventory and were provided with a set of coworker descriptions in the context of a hypothetical job of research assistant. The coworkers were described as either high or low on 1 of 5 targeted personality traits, and participants judged preference for each coworker in terms of likeability and productivity under assumptions of working together versus apart and with the coworker versus the participant in charge. Overall, results supported the expectation that participants would prefer coworkers who allowed trait expression, and effects were stronger, overall, when participants expected to work closely with their coworkers and when preference targeted likeability versus productivity.
Circumplex-based predictions involving both communion and agency were supported. Thus, affiliative participants preferred similar others, and participants low on autonomy preferred dominant coworkers (especially when the latter were in charge). Other findings supported trait activation more broadly. For example, dominant participants avoided defendant coworkers, which, in trait activation terms, may be attributed to the former expecting the latter to not take directions well (thereby constraining expression of dominance). Low-abasement (i.e., arrogant) participants preferred affiliative coworkers because, in trait activation terms, the latter were expected to offer greater acceptance of arrogant expressions. Where defendence falls on the circumplex relative to dominance and where affiliation falls relative to abasement distracts from the more parsimonious idea that people prefer those offering greater opportunity for trait expression. This principle was the primary target of investigation in the current undertaking, building on previous research by examining coworker preference in actual teams.
- Raters high on dominance should prefer others low on dominance, as those seeking to lead should find it easier to do so among others lacking that aspiration (high-low complementarity).
Reciprocal (Paired) Inter-trait Hypotheses
Achievement-Affiliation
- Raters high on achievement should prefer affiliative coworkers, as the greater involvement of the latter in group engagements increases opportunities to express achievement (high-high complementarity). In addition, because achievement strivers can be seen as “task masters,” they may especially appreciate the acceptance offered by affiliative group members.
- Raters high on affiliation should prefer others high on achievement because the latter will be especially engaged in the task, thereby increasing opportunity for the expression of affiliation (high-high complementarity).
Autonomy-Affiliation
- Raters low on autonomy should prefer coworkers high on affiliation, as seeking guidance and support will be welcomed more by affiliative than by non-affiliative group members (high-low complementarity).
- Raters high on affiliation should prefer coworkers low on autonomy, as those seeking guidance and support offer greater opportunity to be affiliative (high-low complementarity).
Dominance-Affiliation
- Raters high on dominance should prefer others high on affiliation, as expressing affiliation in group engagements increases opportunities to express dominance (high-high complementarity). In addition, because dominant individuals can be seen as domineering, they may especially appreciate the acceptance offered by affiliative group members.
- Raters high on affiliation should prefer others high on dominance, as expressing dominance in group engagements increases opportunities to express affiliation (high-high complementarity).
Autonomy-Dominance
- Raters high on autonomy should seek to avoid those high on dominance because the latter will seek to impose directions incompatible with a sense of independence in task completion (high-low complementarity).
- Raters high on dominance should prefer those low on autonomy because the latter will more willingly accept direction (high-low complementarity).
Achievement-Defendence
- Raters high on achievement should seek to avoid those high on defendence because defensive reactions can dampen the climate for achievement initiatives (high-low complementarity).
- Raters high on defendence should seek to avoid those high on achievement because the latter are likely to have low tolerance for defensiveness, reducing opportunity to express defendence (high-low complementarity).
Dominance-Defendence
- Raters high on dominance should seek to avoid those high on defendence because the latter are likely to react negatively to direction, dampening the climate for dominance expression (high-low complementarity).
- Raters high on defendence should seek to avoid those high on dominance because the latter are likely to have low tolerance for defensiveness, reducing opportunity to express defendence (high-low complementarity).
Non-reciprocal (Unpaired) Inter-trait Hypotheses
- Raters high on autonomy should prefer others high on achievement because task focus, as an expression of achievement striving, clarifies what autonomous individuals can be autonomous about (high-high complementarity).
- Raters high on abasement should prefer coworkers high on achievement because task focus, as an expression of achievement striving, enhances opportunities to express humility (e.g., due to perceived unmet objectives; high-high complementarity).
- Raters high on abasement should prefer coworkers high on dominance because receiving directions from dominant others offers greater opportunity to express humility (high-high complementarity).
- Raters low on abasement (i.e., arrogant raters) should prefer coworkers high on affiliation because the former will especially appreciate the acceptance offered by affiliative group members (high-low complementarity).
- Raters high on defendence should prefer coworkers high on affiliation because the former will especially appreciate the acceptance offered by affiliative group members (high-high complementarity).
Interactions were assessed using rater-ratee pairs ( N = 294) by regressing raters’ coworker preferences onto rater and ratee personality (step 1) and their products (step 2, after centering on the basis of standard scores) in 36 analyses formed by pairing all 6 traits to each other (e.g., rater Abasement by ratee Dominance, rater Dominance by ratee Abasement). Significant interactions were interpreted by examining plots of (standardized) preference total score means based on participants scoring in the upper and lower thirds of the sample on each trait involved in the given interaction ( N range = 25 to 71).
Results
Main effect correlations for both ratees and raters are reported in Table 2. Notably, none of the 6 correlations involving ratee traits is significant, suggesting that coworker preference is not strongly tied solely to particular ratee traits in this sample. Three of the 6 correlations involving rater traits, however, are significant. Results suggest that raters high on affiliation, high on abasement, or low on defendence were more lenient in judging coworker preference than those at the opposite ends of those dimensions.
Changes in R square with the addition of the rater-trait-by-ratee-trait interaction term are shown in Table 3. Significant effects are evident in 12 of the 36 cases (33%). Of the 20 hypothesized effects, 10 (50%) are significant, with all but one operating in the expected direction. The exception, rater-Dominance-by-ratee-Dominance (H3), supported a high-high similarity interaction rather than the expected high-low complementarity. Notably, this is the only significant similarity effect observed out of the 6 possibilities.
Of the 6 pairs of reciprocal hypotheses, only the Dominance-Affiliation pair was supported in both cases, such that dominant raters preferred affiliative coworkers (H8) and vice versa (H9). For the remaining 5 pairs of reciprocal hypotheses, 2 received support for one half of the pair: affiliative raters preferred high achievement coworkers (H5) and defendant raters avoided them (H13), but the reverse was not supported significantly in either case (H4 and H12, respectively). All 5 of the non-reciprocal hypotheses were supported, such that autonomous raters preferred high achievement coworkers (H16), low abasement (i.e., arrogant) raters avoided high achievement coworkers (H17), high abasement raters preferred dominant coworkers (H18), and both low abasement (i.e., arrogant) and high defendant raters preferred affiliative coworkers (H19 and H20, respectively).
Both remaining significant interactions were unexpected (2 of 16 = 12.5%): non- autonomous raters preferred high abasement coworkers and non-affiliative raters avoided defendant coworkers. The latter reciprocates the hypothesized rater defendence by ratee affiliation interaction, adding to the significant expected dominance-affiliation reciprocation. Significant hypothesized interactions are depicted in Figures 1, 2, and 3, respectively, for ratee achievement, ratee affiliation, and ratee dominance.
Discussion
Our goal was to assess whether coworker preference in student teams can be explained in terms of personality trait activation. Results were mixed, with under half of the expected interactions statistically significant, and significant effects yielding overall modest effect sizes (range = 1% to 3% unique variance explained). Of the 6 pairs of expected reciprocal effects, only 1 (high DOM-high AFF) was supported both ways. An additional reciprocation emerged for the AFF-DEF combination, only one direction of which was expected (H20: rater high DEF-ratee high AFF). Reciprocated preferences seem ideal for cohesion, and current results thus support such effects for 2 of the 6 traits. Interpersonal attraction working in just one direction may be beneficial nonetheless, and 4 of the 5 predicted non-reciprocal effects (H16 to H19) were supported.
The meager support for reciprocal effects led us to examine the pattern of results differently. Notably, 10 of the 12 significant interactions involve just 3 of the 6 ratee traits: achievement, affiliation, and dominance. High achievement ratees were preferred by affiliative, autonomous, high abasement, and low defendant raters (see Figure 1), affiliative ratees were preferred by dominant, low abasement, and high defendant raters (Figure 2), and dominant ratees were preferred by affiliative, dominant, and high abasement raters (Figure 3). The predominance of these 3 ratee traits may be tied to the nature of the tasks, with achievement activated by task demands, and affiliation and dominance by the social nature of the tasks. The interactions reveal trait-based rater reactions to ratee trait expressions, suggesting a chain reaction of trait activation effects: team tasks activate traits directly related to such tasks (achievement, affiliation, dominance), and then raters, as a function of their own traits, react to ratees’ responses to team-task cues, as expressed in differential coworker preference.
That some traits are activated directly by the team tasks and other traits by team members’ trait expressions is consistent with trait activation theory’s separation of cues at the task and social levels (Tett & Burnett, 2003), and shows how the theory can help model the complexities of person-job fit based on personality traits. Further research into which traits interact under which conditions relating to tasks, norms, and group composition, we believe, will facilitate personality-oriented team building, leading to better management of team cohesion and performance.
Interestingly, rater achievement was involved in none of the significant rater-ratee interactions (see ACH column results in Table 3). This may be due in part to achievement being a task-related variable and, accordingly, less sensitive to the effects of coworkers' traits. Our results are somewhat surprising, nonetheless, as others' traits were expected to affect achievement expression (e.g., as per H4 and H12). One possible explanation is that task objectives and methods in the current study were clear enough to negate coworker trait effects. Rater achievement might be more likely to interact with ratee traits if conditions for success are more ambiguous, creating opportunity for conflict regarding goals and paths. Further research is needed to assess the conditions under which achievement expression is affected by coworker traits.
activation belies complexities that challenge the predictability of personality-based person-job fit.
One such complexity, noted above, is that traits activated at the task level may differ from those activated at the social level. We suggest in the current study, for example, that achievement-related responses to the tasks became fodder for positive reactions by autonomous team members because, as per the rationale in H16, achievement behaviors clarify what team members can be autonomous about. Thus, trait activation operating at the social level can be driven by task features, and predictions of trait-based coworker preference need to take account of factors operating at both levels (i.e., in terms of interactions among rater traits, ratee traits, and task variables, e.g., who is in charge; Tett & Murphy, 2002).
A second set of complexities arises from consideration of interactions among traits within individuals. For example, the way others react to a dominant team member will likely depend on whether that member’s dominance is combined with high versus low emotional stability, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and open-mindedness. Stronger interactions among team members leading to differential coworker preference may be evident using personality profiles. Current results, offering modest support for the effects of individual trait activation, likely underestimate the impact of personality trait configurations on coworker preference.
Following from the previous point, current results suggest that coworker preference need not rely on mutual trait activation. Preference was a two-way street for dominance-affiliation, defendence-affiliation, and dominance-dominance, but 7 of 12 significant interactions were non-reciprocal. This raises the interesting question of whether interpersonal compatibility (or incompatibility) can result from one-way trait activation involving different pairs of traits. For example, person A, who is high on defendence and high on dominance might be compatible with person B, who is low on achievement and high on abasement because the high rater DEF-low ratee ACH complementarity will lead A to prefer B, and the high rater ABA-high ratee DOM complementarity will lead B to prefer A. Such possibilities may be managed in part using personality profiles, as discussed above, but they may require consideration at the level of specific traits.
A fourth complexity stems from the observation that team cohesion is not strongly tied to team performance. Evans and Dion (1991) reported a corrected meta-analytic mean correlation of just .42, suggesting that there may be an optimal level of cohesion beyond which performance suffers. Those seeking to take personality into account when building teams need to consider that connecting personality to performance requires both trait activation and evaluation of trait-expressive behaviors (Tett & Burnett, 2003). Finding people who prefer one another in team settings may or may not be productive. Looking at it the other way around, more productive teams may be composed of members who are not entirely mutually preferred. Identifying the conditions under which high versus moderate (and perhaps even low) cohesion yields the best team performance is an important target for future research.
Further complexities challenging personality-based predictions in teams can be expected from a variety of other sources, including team size, team member roles and their interdependence, group norms, individuals’ unique skills and abilities (and the lack thereof), and organizational culture. Personality operates in such a rich nexus of factors that sorting out all the important main and interaction effects can be expected to occupy researchers' attention for some time to come. No one approach is likely to account for all the noted complexities, and trait activation theory is no exception. However, that people are motivated to express positively valued traits and, hence, to seek situations where they can express those traits and be accepted for who they are offers a parsimonious framework for addressing the noted complexities toward making better use of personality data in the workplace.
Summary and Conclusions
- Of 20 hypothesized directional interactions between rater and ratee traits, 9 were significant (45%), effects ranging from 1% to 3% explained variance in coworker preference. Two pairs of reciprocal complementarity effects were observed, one of which was unpredicted. Significant results are consistent, nonetheless, with trait activation principles.
- That 10 of the 12 significant interactions involved just 3 of the 6 ratee traits relevant to the team tasks suggests a chain reaction of trait activation effects: the tasks activated achievement, affiliation, and dominance, then raters reacted to those trait expressions based on their own traits. Research on personality-based coworker preference needs to account for trait activation operating at both the task and social levels.
- Affiliative team members were preferred by those with abrasive traits of high dominance, high defendence, and low abasement (high achievement yielded a similar but non-significant pattern). Whether ratee affiliation confers acceptance or deactivation of abrasive trait expression (or both) is a matter for further inquiry.
- Trait activation theory warrants refinement by taking account of trait desirability. Specifically, individuals can be expected to seek conditions offering cues to express desirable traits and avoid those offering cues to express undesirable traits.
- Personality operates in a veritable sea of potential moderators. Current findings encourage further research into associated complexities using trait activation theory as a relatively parsimonious integrative framework.
Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (2nd^ ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Holland, J. L. (1996). Exploring careers with a typology, American Psychologist, 51, 397-
Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., & Dunnette, M. D. (1990). Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581-595.
Huffcutt, A. I., Conway, J. M., Roth, P. L., & Stone, N. J. (2001). Identification and meta- analytic assessment of psychological constructs measured in employment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 897-913.
Jackson, D. N., (1989). Personality Research Form manual. Port Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment Systems.
Kichuk, S. L., & Wiesner, W. H. (1998). Work team: Selecting members for optimal performance. Canadian Psychology, 39, 23-32.
Kidwell, R. E., Jr., Mossholder, K. W., & Bennett, N. (1997). Cohesiveness and organizational citizenship behavior: A multilevel analysis using work groups and individuals. Journal of Management, 23 (6), 775-793.
Kiesler, D. J. (1983). The 1982 interpersonal circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions. Psychological Review , 90 , 185-214.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49 , 1-
Kristof-Brown, A. L. (2000). Perceived applicant fit: Distinguishing between recruiters’ perceptions of person-job and person-organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 53 , 643-671.
Hough, L. M., Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1998, April). Personality correlates of managerial performance constructs. Paper presented in R. C. Page (Chair) Personality Determinants of Managerial Potential Performance, Progression and Ascendancy. Symposium conducted at the 13th annual conference of the Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology, Dallas.
Jackson, D. N. (1989). Personality Research Form manual. Port Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment Systems.
Judge, T. A., Martocchio, J. J., & Thoresen, C. J. (1997). Five-Factor Model of personality and employee abuse. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82 , 745-755.
Morgan, B. B., Jr., Salas, E., & Glickman, A. S. (2001). An analysis of team evolution and maturation. The Journal of General Psychology, 120, 277-291.
Morse, J. J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1979). Effects of personality and perception of the environment on satisfaction with task group. The Journal of Psychology, 103, 183-
Muchinsky, P.M., & Monahan, C.J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 31, 268-277.
Mullen, B., & Cooper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin , 115 (2), 210-227.
Rounds, J., & Tracey, T. J. (1993). Prediger’s dimensional representation of Holland’s circumplex. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 , 875-890.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology , 40 , 437-453.
Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500-517.
Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 397-423.
Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703-742.
Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., Rothstein, M., & Reddon, J. R. (1999). Meta-analysis of bi- directional relations in personality-job performance research, Human Performance , 12 , 1-.
Tett, R. P., & Murphy, P. J. (2002). Personality and situations in coworker preference: Similarity and complementary in worker compatibility. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 223-241.
Tracey, T. J., & Rounds, J. (1993). Evaluating Holland’s and Gati’s vocational-interest models: A structural meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 229-246.
van Vianen, A. E. M., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2001). Personality in teams: Its relationship to social cohesion, task cohesion, and team performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 97-120.
Wiggins, J. S., & Trobst, K. K. (1997). When is a circumplex an “interpersonal circumplex”? The case of supportive actions. In R. Plutchik & H. R. Conte (Eds.), Circumplex models of personality and emotions (pp. 57-80). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Yoon, J., Ko, J., & Baker, M. R. (1994). Interpersonal attachment and organizational commitment: Subgroup hypothesis revisited. Human Relations, 47 (3), 329-351.
Zaccaro, S. J. (1991). Nonequivalent associations between forms of cohesiveness and group-related outcomes: Evidence for multidimensionality. Journal of Social Psychology, 131 (3), 387-399.
Table 2 Correlations Between Coworker Preference and Ratee and Rater Trait Scores.
Table 3 R^2 Change for Rater-by-Ratee Trait Interactions in Predicting Mean Standardized Coworker Preference ( N = 294 pairs).
Rateea Trait ( N = 43)
Achievement .00 -. Affiliation .06 .40 * Autonomy -.02. Dominance .11 -. Abasement -.07 .36 * Defendence -.15 -.32 *
abased on mean standardized coworker preference scores bbased on mean raw coworker preference scores
( N = 37)
Rater b
Ratee trait
Achievement .005 .013 * .017 ** .005 .021 *** .013 **
Affiliation .005 .004 .001 .009 * .022 *** .026 *** Autonomy .000 .000 .003 .000 .002. Dominance .004 .033 *** .002 .009 * .010 *. Abasement .003 .004 .011 * .002 .004. Defendence .005 .012 * .005 .003 .003.
*p < .05, **p < .025, ***p < .01, one-tailed
ABA DEF
Rater trait
ACH AFF AUT DOM
Figure 1 Rater-Ratee Trait Interactions Involving Ratee Achievement (ACH)
Low High Rater Defendence
Low ACH
High ACH -.
Low High Rater Affiliation
Low ACH
High ACH
Low High Rater Autonomy
High ACH
Low ACH
Low High Rater Abasement
Low ACH
High ACH
