Revisiting the neuroticism – performance link: A dynamic approach to individual differences

Abstract

In the present paper, the relationship between neuroticism and supervisory ratings of performance is examined using a dynamic approach to personality. This approach integrates both within-and between-person differences by looking at individual differences in baseline neuroticism, neuroticism variability and neuroticism attractor strength. Our findings showed that baseline neuroticism related to lower supervisory ratings of performance, and that a high level of baseline neuroticism is particularly detrimental for people who fail to return to their baseline swiftly. Altogether, these findings demonstrate that adopting a more integrative, dynamic approach to personality has the potential to contribute to a better understanding of the personality-performance relationship. Practitioner pointsHow employees' performance is perceived by their supervisors not only depends on between-person differences in employees' average level of neuroticism, but also on the extent to which their state neuroticism levels vary Assessing personality dynamics has the potential to contribute to a better understanding of the candidate's personality Managers should take into account that the impact of baseline personality on performance depends on how deviations from the baseline are regulated.Traditionally, research on the personality-performance relation has focused on predicting between-person differences in job performance from between-person differences in personality traits. Despite the fact that meta-analytical research demonstrates that personality traits do indeed predict job performance, only looking at how people behave, feel and think on average is quite restrictive.In response to this, personality scholars are increasingly adopting an integrative approach to personality. According to this approach, personality should not be equated with a set of scores on several trait dimensions, but attention should also be given to momentary expressions of those traits (Dalal et al.

Where I am and who I am with: Contextual dynamics of personality in the prediction of work performance

“…This indicates that variation in the contextual expressions of personality traits are meaningful in the sense that they clarify relations with specific criteria. Taken together, these observations support the inclusion of contextual dynamics as a component of the growing conceptual understanding of personality dynamics (e.g., Sosnowska, Hofmans et al, 2020).…”

“…The literature on personality traits has rapidly advanced in recent years to develop the traditional view of traits—as stable, consistent ways of behaving thinking, feeling, which differ between people—to a perspective in which recognizes that within‐person variability is meaningful, nonrandom, and informative for understanding personality (Sosnowska, Hofmans et al, 2020; Woods et al, 2013, 2019). The dynamic approach introduces the idea that temporal or situational fluctuation in trait expression can explain within‐person variation in behavior and consequent outcomes (Sosnowska et al, 2021).…”

“…A limitation of these studies is that performance was measured as self‐reports, although obtaining other‐rated momentary performance does present a significant methodological challenge. Sosnowska and Hofmans et al (2020) examined the impact of state Neuroticism on supervisory rated job performance. Their findings indicated that baseline state Neuroticism did predict job performance ratings, but that performance was unrelated to variability of the trait over time.…”

The dynamics, processes, mechanisms, and functioning of personality: An overview of the field

“…For example, recent empirical studies suggest that assessing stable inter‐individual differences in within‐person contingencies (Mischel & Shoda, 1995; see CAPS in Table 3) between personality states and situational demands (i.e., state levels changing systematically with task demand) may improve predictions of work outcomes beyond traditional personality trait assessments (Minbashian, Wood, & Beckmann, 2010; Wood et al, 2019). Moreover, several studies have investigated relations between personality state fluctuations and job performance (e.g., Debusscher, Hofmans, & De Fruyt, 2014, 2016a, 2016b, 2017; Sosnowska et al, 2019b). Guided by Whole Trait Theory (Fleeson & Jayawickreme, 2015; see WTT in Table 3), Lievens et al (2018) used situational judgement tests to examine people’s hypothetical states in response to different work situations and found that intra‐individual variability incrementally predicted job performance beyond traditional trait measures.…”

The Dynamics, Processes, Mechanisms, and Functioning of Personality: An Overview of the Field

“…For example, recent empirical studies suggest that assessing stable inter-individual differences in within-person contingencies (Mischel & Shoda, 1995;see CAPS in Table 3) between personality states and situational demands (i.e., state levels changing systematically with task demand) may improve predictions of work outcomes beyond traditional personality trait assessments (Minbashian et al, 2010;Wood et al, 2019). Moreover, several studies have investigated relations between personality state fluctuations and job performance (e.g., Debusscher et al, 2014Debusscher et al, , 2016aDebusscher et al, , 2016bDebusscher et al, , 2017Sosnowska et al, 2019b). Guided by Whole Trait Theory (Fleeson & Jayawickreme, 2015; see WTT in Table 3), Lievens et al (2018) used situational judgment tests to examine people's hypothetical states in response to different work situations and found that intra-individual variability incrementally predicted job performance beyond traditional trait measures.…”