The Interaction of Managers’ and Employees’ Similar
Personality Traits on Employees’ Proactivity.
Irman Pennekamp
10069526 6325076
Amsterdam, July 22, 2013
Thesis Seminar Business Studies Supervisor: I. Wolsink
Academic year: 2012 - 2013 Semester 2, Block 3
Abstract
The current economic situation places a higher demand upon its employees capabilities. Proactive behavior is an important aspect within these demands and extant literature has shown that peoples’ personalities are a predictor of this proactive behavior (Walumbwa and Schaubroeck, 2009; LePine and Van Dyne, 2001). Therefore this study has focused on the interaction effects between the similar personality traits of employees and their manager and whether this interaction affects the employees’ proactive behavior. This studies’ hypotheses suggested to find positive moderation effects for the similar personality traits with the exception of neuroticism, which would result in a negative moderation effect. These hypotheses were tested with a sample of 203 Dutch employees and their managers. The results revealed no significant moderation effects with the exception of conscientiousness when measuring voice behavior at employee level. This study conflicts with what was expected on the basis of the current literature, however it does provide managers with information about the effects of the interaction between personalities on employees’ proactivity.
Introduction
The current market is in a state of continuous change. The pressures for innovation that consumers put on companies are enormous and the costs associated with seeking and
implementing those innovations are substantial (Parker, Williams & Turner, 2006). Companies have an increasingly decentralized form of management and the economic (Chossudovsky, 2010), financial (McKinley, 2012) and Euro crisis (Krugman, 2013) do not make things easier for companies. These factors increase the demand for employees who are capable of taking initiative and behave proactively (Campbell, 2000). Dan Satterthwaite, head of human resources at DreamWorks, said the following about proactivity in his workforce (Bruzzese, 2012): ‘The work that we do is so collaborative that we must have people who can not only sit at their desk and solve a problem but then be able to articulate that solution to their supervisor and to the team.’
In recent years there has been a lot of research on proactivity. These studies focused either on the influence of employees proactivity on the environment (Bateman & Crant, 1993) or vice versa (Parker, Williams & Turner, 2006). It also focused on the effect of proactivity on job performance and motivation (Ohly & Fritz, 2007; Thompson, 2005; Crant, 1995) and the effect of leadership styles on proactivity (Williams, Parker & Turner, 2010; Strauss, Griffin & Rafferty, 2009; Campbell, 2000). These authors looked at ways to influence or enhance the proactivity of employees. They tackle the problem of how to get the employee to behave proactively within the organization. What is missing in the literature though, is an employee his/her fit in the culture of an organization and whether this will affect his/her proactivity. That is why this study will focus on the fit between employees’ personalities and the managers’ personalities as a predictor of the employees’ proactive behavior. Instead of the employees’ colleagues, environment or type of work (which have already been studied) (Parker, Bindl & Strauss, 2010; Fritz & Sonnentag, 2009; Parker, Williams & Turner, 2006; Crant, 2000), the direct manager was chosen, because the manager creates and manages the culture within a company (Schein, 2004). Therefore, the leaders’ personality is an important determinant of the environment and its employees' proactive behavior, because it has been
suggested that a leaders' personality is one of the key factors that determines how a leader acts (Paunonen & Ashton, 2001).
Proactive Behavior
In the literature, the phenomenon Dan Satterwhaite spoke of is described as employee voice behavior, which is one of the many constructs of proactive behavior. Proactive behavior is most simply defined by Crant (2000, p. 436) as ‘taking initiative in improving current circumstances or creating new ones; it involves challenging the status quo rather than passively adapting to present conditions.’ This definition also emphasizes the importance of proactive behavior in companies, because, a company has more chances of improving its current circumstances or creating new opportunities when employees behave proactively. Employees who behave proactively have a ‘long-term focus and therefore anticipate on future problems or opportunities and act upon them’ (Frese, Kring, Soose & Zempel, 1996). This was also elaborated in the quote of Dan Satterwhaite, because he does not only want his employees to be able to come up with ideas, he also wants them to find opportunities for improvements.
Voice Behavior
As mentioned earlier, proactive behavior comes in many different constructs, including: ‘voice, taking charge, creativity, network building, and career-related initiative’ (Fuller & Marler, 2009). To determine the proactive behavior of an employee, this study will be using voice behavior. Voice behavior was chosen, because it is a construct that is very social.
Employees who are proactive through voice, communicate their ideas and solutions directly to fellow employees and their managers. This is also one of the main reasons why this study focused on the personality fit between a manager and his or her employees, because a possible
fit in personality would make it easier for the employees to express themselves toward the manager. LePine and Van Dyne (2001) also mention some examples of the importance of voice behavior: ‘Suggesting organizational improvements (Motowidlo & Schmit, 1999; Brief & Motowidle, 1986); making constructive suggestions (Motowidlo & Schmit, 1999; George & Brief, 1992); suggesting ideas for how others in the unit should proceed; and persuading others to accept ideas, opinions, and directions (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Borman et al., 1985).’ LePine and Van Dyne (p. 853, 1998) define voice behavior as: ‘speaking up and challenging the status quo with the intent of improving the situation.’
Personality and Voice
Over the last half a decade personality is a topic that has been studied by many researchers through various approaches (Carver & Connor-Smith, 2010). For this study, the definition of personality was used that was provided by Guilford (1959) because of its breadth and
applicability for interpreting personality traits (Bilsky & Schwartz, 1994). His definition of personality refers to the individuals’ ‘unique pattern of traits.’ In this study, these traits - that make an individual unique - were examined by using the Big Five Personality Traits. The personality traits will be analyzed through the managers’ view on the employees’ voice behavior and the employees’ view on his or her own voice behavior. Thus, this study tests voice behavior multi-sourced.
Fit
This study focused on the fit-effect between the similar personality traits of employees and managers, because similarity often leads to a fit in how people respond or react (Piasentin & Chapman, 2007; Brown, Barrick & Franke, 2002; Moreland & Zajonc, 1982; Tversky, 1977). Therefore, the choice was made to look at the similar personality traits of employees and
managers, because these similar personality traits could cause a fit between the employees and managers, which would positively influence the interaction effects.
Research question
The purpose of this study is to look at what the best possible personality fit is between employees and their managers in order to achieve employee proactivity within an
organization. Thus in order to fill the gap in the literature just described the research question can be described as: ‘What are the best employee-manager personality fits to achieve
employee proactivity.’
With the knowledge of what the best employee-manager personality fit is, managers will be able to hire personnel that fits their own personality in such a way, that the employee will behave more proactively.
Conceptual background and hypotheses
Big-Five factors
In order to understand the conceptual background and hypotheses better, some information will be given about what the Big Five entails and what other researchers’ results were with regard to personalities’ effects on employees’ voice behavior.
The Big Five factors were discovered by Tupes and Christal (1961) when they were reanalyzing data sets of Cattell (1957). They found five factors that proved to be replicable (Goldberg 1992; Goldberg, 1990) and numbered and named them as: (I) Extraversion; (II) Agreeableness; (III) Conscientiousness; (IV) Neuroticism (vs. Emotional Stability); (V) Openness (Goldberg, 1992; Goldberg, 1990).
Each of these factors are frequently associated with certain traits (Barrick & Mount, 1991). (I) Extraversion is associated with sociable, assertive, talkative and active traits. (II) Agreeableness is associated with courteous, flexible, trusting, good-natured, cooperative, forgiving, soft-hearted and tolerant traits. (III) Conscientiousness is associated with careful, thorough, responsible, organized, planful and achievement-oriented traits. (IV) Neuroticism is associated with anxious, angry, embarrassed, emotional, worried and insecure traits. And (V) Openness is associated with imaginative, curious, original, broad-minded and intelligent traits.
The Big Five was chosen as personality measurement, because it is widely used and the model has been extensively studied (John & Srivastava, 1999; McCrae & Costa, 1999).
Employees’ Personality
Bateman and Crant (1993) and LePine and Van Dyne (2001) studied the effects of employees’ Big-Five traits on proactive behavior. Bateman and Crant (1993) found
extraversion and conscientiousness to be positively related to employees’ proactive behavior. Extraversion is related to proactive behavior, because both extravert and proactive employees seek new experiences and activities (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Conscientiousness is related to proactive behavior, because both conscientious and proactive employees are goal-oriented (Bateman & Crant, 1993).
LePine and Van Dyne (2001) found the same results as Bateman and Crant, only now for voice behavior. However, they also found that neuroticism was negatively related to voice behavior, because people who engage in voice behavior draw attention to themselves. This would be quite a challenge for people with the trait neuroticism, because these people feel more insecure and easily embarrassed.
Barrick, Stewart and Piotrowski (2002) mentioned that agreeableness was associated with individuals being altruistic and eager to help others, which would suggest employees to be more proactive when they are agreeable, because they would want to help the organization.
Thus, in the studies of Bateman and Crant (1993) and LePine and Van Dyne (2001) and Barrick, Steward and Piotrowski (2002) employees proactive behavior seem to be mostly influenced by their conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism.
Managers’ Personality
Walumbwa and Schaubroeck (2009) studied the indirect effect of leaders agreeableness, conscientiousness and neuroticism on employees’ voice behavior through ethical leadership. They found that agreeableness and conscientiousness were positively related to voice
behavior and neuroticism was unrelated to voice behavior. Agreeableness had a positive relation, because these people are more likely to help others, be trustworthy, cooperative (Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2001) and they are more inclined to be humane and good to
people (Brown, Trevi᷈no & Harrison, 2005). Conscientiousness was positive, because
conscientious people feel a moral obligation to others, they are dependable, thorough and achievement-oriented. Neuroticism was expected to have a negative outcome on voice behavior, because these people experience negative emotions and are often hostile towards
others (Brown and Trevi᷈no, 2006). The reason why Walumbwa and Schaubroeck (2009) did
not find an effect of neuroticism might be due to the work contexts that can influence leaders’ ethical behavior and therefore the employees’ voice behavior. A stressful situation can for example influence the leaders’ ethical behavior negatively, which could make him more strict, which would have a negative effect on employees’ voice behavior.
Aronson, Reilly and Lynn (2006) studied the effects of employees’ Big Five traits on teamwork. As the definition of voice behavior stated, employees need to be able to
communicate their ideas or solutions to others, thus, teamwork can be a determinant for voice behavior, because communication is required in teamwork (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). Their results implicated that extraversion, conscientiousness and openness positively
influenced teamwork and neuroticism had a negative influence. Agreeableness was not taken into account in this study, because the authors of previous studies found agreeableness to be rather contradictory. The contradictions found in agreeableness resulted from leaders who required the trait agreeableness, because it entails altruism, tact and sensitivity (Zaccaro, Foti & Kenny, 1991). On the other hand, agreeable persons are frequently modest (Goldberg, 1990), which leaders are often not (Bass, 1990).
With regard to the articles of Walumbwa and Schaubroeck (2009) and Aronson, Reilly and Lynn (2006), there is a consistency of positive influences of conscientiousness,
extraversion and openness and a negative influence of neuroticism on voice behavior.
Agreeableness was found positive in the first study and was not used in the second. However, there is sufficient research that found a managers’ agreeableness to have a positive influence on employees (Cable and Judge’s, 2003).
Employee-Manager Extraverts
To be able for an employee to articulate an idea or solution to a manager, he or she must be social, in order to be able to communicate to the manager and he or she must be assertive in order to speak up. Managers should also be social in order for employees to feel comfortable to talk to the manager. That is why this study assumes that an employee will be more
proactive when the employee and the manager are both extravert.
Hypothesis 1: A positive Extraversion fit will increase employees’ proactivity.
Employee-Manager Agreeableness
Agreeable employees will be more proactive, because agreeableness would suggest they are tolerant, cooperative and eager to help others. Managers should also be agreeable, because agreeable managers are flexible, trustworthy and tolerant, so they are open to new ideas and if it is a bad idea, they are very forgiving about it. Therefore this study expects employees to be more proactive when they themselves and their managers are high on agreeableness. This is hypothesized as:
Hypothesis 2: Employees high on agreeableness will be more proactive when their managers are also high on agreeableness.
Employee-Manager Conscientiousness
Employees who are conscientious are responsible, organized and achievement-oriented, these are all traits that would enhance proactivity. Managers who are conscientious would also enhance employees their proactivity, because they are thorough, planful, will take ideas sooner in consideration and will try to make good ideas work, as they feel responsible for the possible benefits this could bring to the company. Therefore, this study expects employees and managers conscientiousness to be positively related to employees’ proactivity, which leads us to hypothesis 3:
Hypothesis 3: Employees high on conscientiousness will be more proactive when managers are also high on conscientiousness.
Employee-Manager Neuroticism
Employees who would be high on neuroticism would be anxious, worrisome and insecure. These traits do not lead to proactive behavior, because to be proactive you need to stand up for the ideas and solutions you have. Managers high on neuroticism would not be open to new ideas that break through the status quo, because they might be anxious and worried about what these changes might bring. Thus, for an employee to be able to act proactively, employees as well as managers should be low on neuroticism, which is hypothesized in the following way:
Hypothesis 4: Employees and managers low on neuroticism will increase employees their proactivity.
Employee-Manager Openness
Employees should be high on openness, because openness is associated with imaginative, curious, broad-minded and intelligent traits, which gives them a better foundation to find problems and behave proactively. Managers should also be high on openness, because broad-minded managers, who are curious and original, will be more inclined to accept (and be open to) new ideas. Therefore, employees' proactivity will increase when both the employees and managers are high on openness. This leads us to hypothesis 5:
Hypothesis 5: Employees and managers high on openness will increase employees' proactivity.
Introvert Employees in Combination with Managers Traits
Introvert employees find it difficult to enact in voice behavior, because it requires them to openly discuss their ideas with others (Bateman & Crant, 1993). However, introvert employees might still be able to engage in voice behavior, if the manager is extremely approachable (Xu, Yu & Shi, 2011). Therefore, a manager with a certain set of traits can be more approachable for an introvert employee. Thus, he would need to have extraversion, emotional stability and agreeableness, because these traits are related to an approachable manager (Barrick & Mount, 1991). This assumption can be hypothesized as:
Hypothesis 6: A managers’ extraversion, emotional stability and agreeableness will positively moderate the (negative) relationship between introvert employees and their voice behavior.
Method
Sample
To test the hypotheses an online survey was administered among Dutch employees and their manager in companies who were active in different branches. For this study the data of a pencil-and-paper survey, held in January 2013, was also used. This survey was administered among Dutch employees and their managers in different branches as well. These two surveys were distributed among a total of 203 Dutch employees and their manager. The data has been gathered from different companies and branches in order to achieve a higher generalizability for this study’s results. Every respondent who participated in this survey was recruited by a student of the University of Amsterdam (UvA).
The average age of the employees was 34.08 (SD=13.25) and 52.1 percent of those employees was female. The distribution of the education levels for the employees were as follows: 17.6% high school, 21.8% MBO, 26.9% HBO and 33.8% WO.
The average age of the managers was 40.78 (SD=11.02) with a standard deviation of 11.02 and 46.3 percent of those employees was female. The distribution of the education levels for the managers were as follows: 12% high school, 19.7% MBO, 34.3% HBO and 33.9% WO.
Measurements
Voice was measured with the 5-item (7 point Likert scale, ranging from 1 - totally disagree, to 7 - totally agree) voice-scale (LePine and Van Dyne, 1998). An example question is: ‘I stay informed about issues where my opinion may be of interest for the organization’. This part of the questionnaire will be multi-sourced to see if there are any differences between the
employees’ perspective on their own voice behavior and the managers' perspective on the employees’ voice behavior. The reliability of this measure was sufficient for both the employee as the manager and can be viewed in Table 1 below.
The Big Five personality traits were measured with the 20-item (7 point Likert scale, ranging from 1- totally disagree, to 7 - totally agree) Mini-IPIP questionnaire (Donnellan, Oswald, Baird & Lucas, 2006). This questionnaire is a shortened version of the Big Five personality scales. An example question is: ‘I have a vivid imagination’. The reliability scores of the personality traits for both employees and managers are reasonably high (Table 1).
Table 1: Descriptives and correlations between the variables (Cronbach's Alphas on diagonal) M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1. Voice Manager 4,959 1,054 (0,869) 2. Openness Manager 4,893 1.065 -0,044 (0,752) 3. Neuroticism Manager 2.651 1,039 0.053 -0.074 (0,748) 4. Conscientiousness Manager 5,278 1,055 -0.046 -0.097 -,183** (0,833) 5. Agreeableness Manager 5,321 0,986 0,190** ,353** -0,124 ,158* (0,804) 6. Extraversion Manager 4,818 0,998 0,083 0.174** 0,023 -0,039 0,246** (0,731) 7. Voice Employee 5,121 0,891 ,249** 0.028 -,243** 0.110 ,213** 0,015 (0,800) 8. Openness Employee 4,636 0,979 -0,029 0.133 ,160* 0,012 ,145* -0,045 ,206** (0,667) 9. Neuroticism Employee 2,816 1,151 -,155* -0.110 0.125 -0,041 -0,143* 0,039 -,168* ,160* (0,824) 10. Conscientiousness Employee 5,111 1,162 ,161 * 0,005 -,127 0.155* 0.114 -0,026 ,311** 0,012 -0,116 (0,846) 11. Agreeableness Employee 5,384 0,965 0,073 0.006 -,231** ,219** 0.164* 0.032 ,352** ,145* -0,065 ,339** (0,793) 12. Extraversion Employee 4,509 1,136 0,054 0.032 -.120 0.154* 0.073 0,089 ,281** ,299** 0,09 -,06 ,183** (0,781) Note. N=247.
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Procedure
The data was acquired from Dutch employees and managers who are employed in different branches. Participants were acquired through e-mail, personal contact and contact with a spokesperson of a company who could provide us with participants of that particular company. All managers and employees were given codes in order to match the results for both. For example, a manager with two employees has code 12, his employees would then receive codes 121 and 122. The survey was distributed by five bachelor students of the UvA. They contacted companies known to them, through relatives or friends and companies with whom they had no relation. This was done in several cities within Noord-Holland. The survey itself was distributed by e-mail, with the e-mailing program provided by Qualtrics. The participants were able to make the survey at a time convenient for them. The participants in this survey were encountered during a period of four weeks in which they also were able to make the survey.
Analyses and Predictions
Analyses
The analysis, which was conducted for the first five hypotheses of this survey, consisted of several linear regressions. First off, the main effects were tested, consisting of the effect of the managers’ and employees’ separate personality traits on the employees’ voice behavior. This was tested from the managers’ perspective on the employees’ voice behavior and the
employees’ perspective on his own voice behavior. Secondly, the interaction effects were tested, which consisted of the effect of the interaction between the managers’ and employees’ similar personality traits on the employees’ voice behavior. This was also tested for both the managers’ and the employees’ perspective on the voice behavior of the employees.
For hypothesis 6, the variable ‘extravert employees’ was divided from the mean
(μ=4,509) into introvert employees (lower than the mean) and extravert employees (higher
than the mean). Both have been put into a custom table with voice behavior. The traits agreeableness, neuroticism and extraversion of the manager have also been divided from the mean and were also put into a custom table with extravert and introvert employees and their effects on the employees’ voice behavior. This was done to test the possible difference between introvert and extravert employees’ voice behavior when employed by a manager with the traits agreeableness, emotional stability and extraversion.
To perform these analyses IBM SPSS Statistics version 20 was used.
Predictions
Hypothesis 1, 2, 3 and 5 contain the same prediction, but for different personality traits. Therefore, of these four hypotheses only the prediction of hypothesis 1 will be given.
Hypothesis 1:
Model 1: Two positive main effects were expected. Extravert employees would have a positive effect on voice behavior and extravert manager would also have a positive effect on the employees’ voice behavior.
Model 2: There was a positive interaction effect expected between the managers’ and employees’ personality traits on the employees’ voice behavior.
Hypothesis 4.
Model 1: Two negative main effects were expected. Neurotic employees and managers would both have a negative effect on the employees’ voice behavior.
Model 2: There was a negative interaction effect expected between the managers’ and employees’ personality traits on the employees’ voice behavior.
Hypothesis 6.
Table 1: A significant difference was expected between extravert employees and introvert employees’ levels of voice behavior.
Table 2: No effect was expected between extravert and introvert employees’ levels of voice behavior when employed by a manager who has the personality traits agreeableness,
emotional stability and extraversion.
Results
Hypothesis 1.
Unexpectedly, no predicted main effect (Model 1, F(2,196)=0.911) was found for employee
extraversion (β=0.047, ns.) nor for manager extraversion (β=0.08, ns.) on voice at manager
level. Voice at employee level (Model 1, F(2,199)==8.640) resulted in a positive effect of
employee extraversion (β=0.283, p<.001) and no effect of manager extraversion (β=-0.011,
ns.).
Furthermore, the predicted interaction effect between employee and manager
extraversion (Model 2) was not found for voice on manager level (β=0.018, F(3,195)==0.626,
ns.) nor voice on employee level (β=0.081, F(3,198)==6.238, ns.). This indicates that the
participants with an extraversion trait were not more proactive when their manager also possessed the extraversion trait. Therefore hypothesis 1 was rejected and one can conclude that there is no effect of employee – manager extraversion fit on the proactive behavior of the employee.
Hypothesis 2.
The predicted main effects (Model 1, F(2,196)==5.840) were not found for employee
agreeableness (β=0.028, ns.), but were found for manager agreeableness (β=0.230, p<.01) on
voice at manager level. Both employee agreeableness (β=0.342, p<.001) and manager
agreeableness (β=0.155, p<0.05) had a positive effect on voice at employee level (Model 1,
F(2,199)==18.789).
The predicted interaction effect between employee and manager agreeableness (Model
2, Table 4) was not found for voice at manager level (β=-0.084, F(3,195)==4.359, ns.) nor voice
at employee level (β=-0.019, F(3,198)==12.496, ns.). This indicates that the participants with an
agreeableness trait were not more proactive when their manager also possessed this trait. Therefore hypothesis 2 was rejected and the conclusion was made that there is no effect of employee – manager agreeableness fit on the proactive behavior of the employee.
Hypothesis 3.
The predicted main effects (Model 1, F(2,196)==2.617) were found for employee
conscientiousness (β=0.159, p<0.05), but not for manager conscientiousness (β=0.013, ns.) on
voice at manager level. Similar patterns were found for voice at employee level (Model 1,
F(2,199)==10.925). Respectively there was a positive effect of employee conscientiousness
(β=0.283, p<.001) and there was no positive effect of manager conscientiousness (β=-0.011,
ns.).
Furthermore, the predicted interaction effect between employee and manager
conscientiousness (Model 2) was not found for voice on manager level (β=0.041,
F(3,195)=1.846, ns.), but there was an interaction effect for voice on employee level (β=0.218,
F(3,198)=11.218, p<0.01). This indicates that when measuring voice at employee level the
participants with a conscientiousness trait were more proactive when their manager also possessed the conscientiousness trait. Thus, hypothesis 3 can be applied and one can conclude that there is an effect of employee – manager conscientiousness fit on the proactive behavior of the employee.
Hypothesis 4.
The predicted main effects were found (Model 1, F(2,196)==2.439) for employee neuroticism
(β=-0.151, p<.05), but not for manager neuroticism (β=-0.02, ns.) on voice at manager level.
However, both employee neuroticism (β=-0.165, p<.05) and manager neuroticism (β=-0.224,
p<0.01) had a negative effect on voice at employee level (Model 1, F(2,199)==9.367).
The predicted interaction effect between employee and manager neuroticism (Model
2) was not found for voice at manager level (β=0.089, F(3,195)==2.121, ns.) nor voice at
employee level (β=-0.036, F(3,198)==6.311, ns.). This indicates that the participants with an
neuroticism trait were not more proactive when their manager also possessed the neuroticism trait. Therefore hypothesis 4 was rejected and the conclusion was made that there is no effect of employee – manager neuroticism fit on the proactive behavior of the employee.
Hypothesis 5.
The predicted main effects were not found (Model 1, F(2,196)==0.177) for employee openness
(β=-0.034, ns.), nor manager openness (β=0.031, ns.) on voice at manager level. When
looking at voice at the employee level (Model 1, F(2,199)==3.959), employee openness had a
positive effect (β=0.195, p<.01), but manager openness did not (β=0.001, ns.).
The predicted interaction effect between employee and manager openness (Model 2,)
was not found for voice at manager level (β=-0.001, F(3,195)==0.117, ns.) nor voice at
employee level (β=0.024, F(3,198)=2.667, ns.). This indicates that the participants with an
openness trait were not more proactive when their manager also possessed the openness trait. Therefore hypothesis 5 was rejected and one can conclude that there is no effect of employee – manager openness fit on the proactive behavior of the employee.
Hypothesis 6.
Unexpectedly, the predicted effects were not found with introvert employees. The effect was neither found for voice on manager level, nor voice at employee level. As the results in Table 12 indicate, extravert employees do significantly (p<.05) behave more proactive than introvert employees when voice is measured at employee level. This difference in proactive voice behavior disappears when we look at the introvert and extravert employees who are employed by a manager with the personality traits extraversion, emotional stability and agreeableness (Table 13). This would suggest that the hypothesis would be supported. Despite the results indicating a support for this hypothesis, it was not reliable enough to draw any conclusions. The sample was not reliable enough, because the sample of introvert and extravert employees, who are employed by an approachable manager, was too low. Therefore, hypothesis 6 was rejected.
Discussion
Main results
This study mainly tried to find whether the interaction between employees and managers their personalities could have an effect on the employees’ voice behavior. This was also described in the research question as: ‘What are the best employee-manager personality fits to achieve employee proactivity.’ The results of this study were quite unexpected, because it appears that the similar personality interactions between employees and managers have no effect on the employees’ voice behavior. Thus, the results suggest that a managers’ personality trait does
not influence the effect between an employees’ similar personality trait and voice behavior. Conscientiousness was the only similar personality trait that lead to an interaction effect of a conscientious manager and conscientious employees on employees’ voice behavior. This condition, that conscientiousness has a positive moderating effect, only meets its criteria when voice behavior is measured at employee level. All other personality fit hypotheses, as well as hypothesis 6 stating that introvert employees would behave more proactive when employed by an approachable manager, were falsified by the data.
Replicated results
The main effects in this study were replications of previous studies. The results of these replicated main effects came to the following conclusions. When looking at the effect of the employees personality traits on voice behavior (which was tested at employee level), the results were similar to previous studies. Extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness all had a positive effect on voice behavior, and neuroticism a negative effect. The managers personality traits on voice behavior at employee level found agreeableness to have a positive effect on voice behavior, and neuroticism a negative effect.
When voice behavior was tested at manager level the results were slightly different. For the employees’ personality traits, only conscientiousness had a positive effect on voice behavior and neuroticism a negative effect. The only personality trait found by managers to have an effect on voice behavior at manager level, was agreeableness.
There were not many main effects on voice behavior at manager level, however the literature used in this study showed that an employee his performance was mostly tested by the employee himself (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009; Aronson, Reilly & Lynn, 2006; LePine & Van Dyne, 2001; Bateman & Crant, 1993). Voice at employee level found the most replicated results and non of the found main effects indicated a major difference from the
previous studies. Thus, the replicated results were consistent with previous literature, which increases the reliability of the interaction results found in this study.
Unpredicted results
The results found in this study were rather unexpected. This study has focused upon the employees and managers similar personality traits, however the only personality trait that lead to an interaction effect was conscientiousness. The interaction effects were mainly expected, because similar personality traits could lead to a certain fit between employees and managers. These similar personality traits could, for example, cause the extravert employee and extravert manager to have a fit with each other. This should have caused an interaction effect on
extravert managers and extravert employees, but as the results show this was not the case. However, it might be possible that non-similar personality traits do have an interaction effect. For example, extravert managers could have an interaction effect with agreeable employees. The interaction of non-similar personality traits would, however, require a study which would focus on this matter.
In this study, conscientiousness of the manager was the only similar personality trait that had a moderating effect. It was quite surprising to find only one interaction effect,
because one would expect, through the current literature, that there would be more interaction effects between the managers and employees their similar personality traits. Despite
conscientiousness being the only Big Five variable that had a fit-effect this did not came as a surprise. As a matter of fact, conscientiousness was the personality trait that was most likely to have an interaction effect, because the traits associated with conscientiousness are the same traits one would address to voice behavior. These traits include careful, thorough, responsible, organized, planful and achievement-oriented traits. In many studies conscientiousness was also appointed as the personality trait that was most important and was related to various
characteristic behaviors, such as efficiency, organized and need for achievement (Crant, 1995; Mount & Barrick, 1991; Digman, 1989). Therefore, conscientiousness is often seen as the personality trait that characterizes a person’s personality the most. Other researchers also concluded that conscientiousness is one of the best predictors of workplace performance, which voice behavior is an important part of (Higgins, Peterson, Lee & Pihl, 2007; Dewitt & Schouwenburg, 2002). Thus, this finding is in line with the literature that conscientiousness indeed is the most important personality trait.
Due to an unforeseen error it was necessary to neglect question seven of the Mini-IPIP test as mentioned in the data & reliability section. Neglecting this question did not affect the reliability scores of that particular personality trait. However, if neglecting one question does not affect the reliability scores of the personality traits in the Mini-IPIP test, one could wonder if this personality test is still too long, even while it only counts 20 items. Taking a closer look at the reliability scores of the personality traits it appeared that these scores could be
maintained while deleting up to 4 questions. This raises the question whether there is a possibility of making a personality test which would count even less items, while maintaining reliability.
Agreeableness was expected to have an interaction effect. Agreeableness of the
manager and employee also had a high positive correlation (Table 14 in the Appendix), which suggests a positive interaction effect could be possible. Although our first hunch with the agreeableness trait was that agreeable managers would have an interaction effect with agreeable employees, this might not be the case after all.
Employees' agreeableness personality trait often resulted in a negative effect on voice behavior (LePine and Van Dyne, 2001). This negative effect was caused, because agreeable employees are more cooperative and do not want to upset relationships in the organization. Therefore, they tend to go along with the status quo and do not engage in proactivity. This
type of behavior - where the employee does not want to upset relationships in the organization - is also called defensive voice behavior (Van Dyne, Ang & Botero, 2003). Thus,
agreeableness has shown rather diverse results in past research concerning its effect on proactivity, which might explain why agreeableness had no interaction effect.
Causes for unsubstantial results
There are a few possible reasons for the lack of an effect between the interaction of
employees’ and managers’ personality traits and the employees’ voice behavior. First of all, for this study the construct voice was used to test an employees’ proactive behavior. The results of the study could have been different and more in line with what was expected when another construct was used. Voice behavior could be less affected by a manager than
originally thought. Voice behavior as defined by LePine and Van Dyne (‘speaking up and challenging the status quo with the intent of improving the situation’) does not indicate that the employee will speak about his ideas and solutions to the manager. The employee could talk about these ideas or solutions to his colleagues instead of the manager. The results also indicate that this might be the case, because when the effects were tested for the employees’ personality on voice behavior at employee level, five out of the five main effects were
significant, whereas at manager level only two were significant. This indicates that employees were more positive about their own voice behavior than managers were about the employees’ voice behavior. When at some point this idea or solution from the employee is transformed into a more deliberate idea of changing the organization for the better it actually becomes the taking charge construct. This construct states that ‘employees are willing to challenge the present state of operations, to bring about constructive change’ (Morrison & Phelps, 1999). To make these changes, the employee would need permission from the manager, which requires the two to interact with each other. Therefore, this construct taking charge could
result in more interaction effects between the managers and employees their personality traits. However, when looking at the data of the paper-and-pencil questionnaire, which also tested the taking charge construct multi-sourced, this assumption is not supported. In fact taking charge lead to the exact same results as voice did. All the similar personality traits had no interaction effect neither from the manager nor from the employee their perspective on the employees’ voice behavior except for conscientiousness when voice behavior was measured by the employee himself.
Though research has pointed out that a manager is able to create and manage a culture (Schein, 2004), this effect on the culture might be influenced by other factors, which was not accounted for. If a manager would have a lower effect on the culture of the organization, this could mean that he is less present in the working atmosphere of the employee. This means that the manager would have no major effect on an employees’ voice behavior, because this is
partly determined by whether the manager works closely with the employee.
Interpretation
The results of this study are not quite the results that were expected. Through the written literature, there was an expectation that there would be a moderation effect on the similar personality traits of employees and managers on the employees’ voice behavior. However, there hardly were any moderation effects for the similar personality traits, this does not fit well into the current literature. Although the results were not as expected, they do indicate that there is no interaction effect between the similar personality traits of employees and managers on the employees’ voice behavior. In this study there were some results that have been
replicated from previous studies, which researched the effects of employees and managers their personality on the employees’ voice behavior. These replicated results are in line with
previous studies, which gives more reason to believe that the interaction results found in this study are reliable.
The results in practice
The results can be of use for managers who are trying to create a work culture in which employees are motivated to be proactive, by matching his employees personality with his own, because as this studies’ results show, this doesn’t seem to create more voice behavior. Also the matching of personalities for new employees and the manager are of no use when it comes to creating a proactive workforce. Therefore, if a manager would try to create a proactive workforce, while looking at the personality traits of the employee and his or her own, it would be more practical to look at those personalities separately. It would be more practical, because this study indicates that there hardly is any interaction effect between the employees’ and managers’ similar personality traits on the employees’ voice behavior. Looking at the personalities separately is more practical, at least until research has been conducted on the interaction effects between non-similar personalities of managers and employees. The only interaction effect that might be useful for a manager to look at is conscientiousness of both the manager and the employee. This personality trait might be useful for the manager, because it is the only similar personality trait that has an effect on the employees’ voice behavior according to this study.
Future research
Future studies could look at the interaction of non-similar personality traits between
employees and their managers. These non-similar personality traits might have an influence on the employees’ voice behavior, because, for example an employee with the personality trait neuroticism might be more proactive when employed by an agreeable manager. This
employee might be more proactive, because this trait of the manager would slightly reduce the negative effect of neuroticism on proactivity. Therefore, it would be interesting to look at the interaction of non-similar personality traits their effects on proactivity. This study could be replicated, but with a different construct. Proactivity, as mentioned earlier, can be tested through various constructs. Voice and most likely taking charge seem not to be influenced by the interaction of similar personality traits, but other constructs might have an effect. A more elaborate study could be conducted on whether or not introvert employees can be more proactive when their manager has certain personality traits. The number of respondents was too low in this study to make any conclusions about this matter. Future researchers should take a closer look at the personality trait agreeableness, because previous studies found different results for agreeableness its effect on proactivity and these differences are not yet accounted for. Which might also be interesting for future studies is to look at the interaction effect of co-workers and whether this interaction effect influences the employees’ proactivity. This may be interesting as co-workers have great influence on the work atmosphere, which is a predictor for employees’ proactive behavior. What also can be examined with regard to the working atmosphere is whether a manager working closely with the employees can influence employees’ proactive behavior more than managers who work separately.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there were hardly any interaction effects of personality found in this study. However there were some interesting results, for instance conscientiousness and
agreeableness. When looking at previous studies and the replicated results in this study, the results found in this study do fall in line with the existing literature. Despite the results of this study falling in line with the existing literature, the amount of interaction effects found for the
similar personality traits was rather unexpected and disappointing. The research question: ‘What are the best employee-manager personality fits to achieve employee proactivity,’ can be answered as follows. In this study, which focused on the similar personality traits, there was only a positive moderation effect found for the interaction of conscientious employees and their conscientious manager on employees’ voice behavior. Although these outcomes are quite unexpected they do provide future studies with new research opportunities and they give managers the possibility to create a more proactive workforce by hiring conscientious
employees who work under a conscientious manager.
References
Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1991). The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26.
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and job performance: Test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 43–51.
Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass and Stogdil’s Handbook of Leadership. New York City, New York: Free Press.
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103-118.
Bilsky, W., & Schwartz, S.H. (1994). Values and personality. European Journal of Personality, 8, 193-181.
Bindl, U.K., & Parker, S.K. (2010). Proactive work behavior: Forward-thinking and change-oriented action in organziations. APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 2, 567-598.
Borman, W.C., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W.C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp.71-98). San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
Borman, W.C., Motowidlo, S.J., Rose, S.R., & Hanser, L.M. (1985). Development of a model of soldier effectiveness. Personnel Decisions Research Institute (Institute Report No. 95).
Brief, A.P., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10, 99-109.
Brown, M.E., Trevino, L.K., & Harrison, D.A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117-134.
Brown, M.E., & Trevino, L.K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 595-616.
Bruzzesse, A. (July 23 2012) DreamWorks is believer in every employee’s creativity. USAtoday. Retrieved April 4, 2013 from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/jobcenter
/workplace/bruzzese/story/2012-07-22/dreamworks-values-innovation-in-all-workers/56376470/1
Cable, D.M., & Judge, T.A. (2003). Managers’ upward influence tactic strategies: The role of manager personality and supervisor leadership style. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 197-214.
Campbell, D. J. (2000). The proactive employee: Managing workplace initiative. Academy of Management Executive, 14, 52– 66.
Cattell, R.B. (1957). Personality and motivation structure and measurement. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book.
Carver, C.S., & Connor-Smith, J. (2010). Personality and Coping. Annual review of psychology, 61, 679-704.
Chossudovsky, M. & Marshall, A.G. (2010). The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century. Montreal, Canada: Global Research Publishers.
Crant, J. M. (1995). The proactive personality scale and objective job performance among real estate agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 532-537.
Crant, J.M. (2000). Proactive Behavior In Organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435-462.
Dewitt, S., & Schouwenburg, H.C. (2002). Procrastination, temptations, and incentives: The struggle between the present and the future in procrastinators and the punctual. European Journal of Personality, 16(6), 469-489.
Digman, J.M. (1989). Five robust trait dimensions: Development, stability, and utility. Journal of Personality, 57(2), 195–214.
Donnellan, M.B., Oswald, F.L., Baird, B.M., & Lucas, R.E. (2006). The Mini-IPIP Scales: Tiny-Yet-Effective Measures of the Big Five Factors of Personality. Psychological
Assessment, 18(2), 192-203.
Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. (1996). Personal initiative at work: Differences between East and West Germany. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 37–63.
Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2009). Antecedents of Day-Level Proactive Behavior: A look at Job Stressors and Positive Affect During the Workday. Journal of Management, 35(1), 94-111.
Fuller Jr., B., & Marler, L.E. (2009). Change driven by nature: A meta-analytic review of the proactive personality literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 329-345.
George, J.M., & Brief, A.P. (1992). Feeling good – doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work – organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310-329.
Goldberg, L.R. (1990). An Alternative “Description of Personality”: The Big-Five Factor Structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216-1229.
Goldberg, L.R. (1992). The Development of Markers for the Big-Five Factor Structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26-42.
Guilford, J.P. (1959). Personality. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Higgins, D.M., Peterson, J.B., Lee, A., & Pihl, R.O. (2007). Prefrontal cognitive ability, intelligence, Big Five personality and the prediction of advanced academic and workplace performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 298-319.
Jensen-Campbell, L.A., & Graziano, W.G. (2001). Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality, 69, 323-361.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin, & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp.102–138). New York City, New York: Guilford Press.
Judge, T.A., Bono, E.J., Illies, R., & Gerhardt, M. (2002). Personality and leadership: a qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765-780.
Kristof-Brown, A., Barrick, M.R., & Franke, M. (2002). Applicant Impression Management: Dispositional Influences and Consequences for Recruiter Perceptions of Fit and Similarity. Journal of Management, 28(1), 27-46.
Krugman, P. (Februari 26 2013). The Euro Crisis Far from over. Economist. Retrieved April 4, 2013 from
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/02/euro-crisis-2?zid=295&ah=0bca374e65f2354d553956ea65f756e0
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 853.
LePine, J.A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and Cooperative Behavior as Contrasting Forms of Contextual Performance: Evidence of Differential Relationships With Big Five Personality Characteristics and Cognitive Ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(2), 326-336.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L. A. Pervin &
O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality (pp. 139–153). New York City, New York: Guilford.
McKinley, V.P. (2012). Financing Failure: A century of Bailouts. Oakland, California: The Independent Institute.
Moreland, R.L., & Zajonc, R.B. (1982). Exposure Effects in Person Perception: Familiarity, Similarity, and Attraction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 395-415.
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403-419.
Motowidlo, S.J., & Schmit, M.J. (1999). Performance assessment in unique jobs. In D. R. Ilgen & E.D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development (pp. 56-86). San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
Mount, M.K., & Barrick, M.R. (1991). The Big Five Personality Dimensions And Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Personnel psychology, 44(1), 1-26.
Ohly, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). Challenging the status quo: What motivates proactive behavior?
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(4), 623-629.
Parker, S.K., Bindl, U.K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making Things Happen: A Model of Proactive Motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827-856.
Parker, S.K., Williams, H.M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the Antecedents of Proactive Behavior at Work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636-652.
Paunonen, S.V., & Ashton, M.C. (2001). Big Five Factors and Facets and the Prediction of Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3), 524-539.
Piasentin, K.A., & Chapman, D.S. (2007). Perceived similarity and complementarity as predictors of subjective person-organization fit. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 341-354.
Schein, E.H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, California: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Strauss, K., Griffin, M. A., & Rafferty, A. E. (2009). Proactivity directed toward the team and organization: The role of leadership, commitment and role-breadth self-efficacy. British Journal of Management, 20, 279-291.
Thompson, J. A. (2005). Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 1011-1017.
Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (Technical Report No. ASD-TR-61-97). Lack-land Air Force Base, TX: U.S. Air Force
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of Similarity. Psychological Review, 84(4), 327-352.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing Employee Silence and Employee Voice as Multidimensional Constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1359-1392.
Walumbwa, F.O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader Personality Traits and Employee Voice Behavior: Mediating Roles of Ethical Leadership and Work Group Psychological Safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1275-1286,
Williams, H.M., Parker, S.K., & Turner, N. (2010). Proactively performing teams: The role of work design, transformational leadership, and team composition. The British Psychological Society. 83, 301-324.
Xu, X., Yu, F., & Shi, J. (2011). Ethical leadership and leaders’ personalities. Social behavior and personality, 39(3), 361-368.
Zaccaro, S.J., Foti, R.J., & Kenny, D.A. (1991). Self monitoring and trait-based variance in leadership: An investigation of leader flexibility across multiple group situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 308-315.
Appendix
Voice Behavior
Based on (voice): Van Dyne, L., & Le Pine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behavior: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108-119.
In hoeverre zijn de volgende stellingen van toepassing op uw eigen werkgedrag? Volledig Volledig
Eens Oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Ik spreek en spoor collega’s aan bij zaken die voor de organisatie van belang zijn. 2. Ik geef mijn mening over werkgerelateerde onderwerpen, zelfs wanneer deze verschilt
van de mening van anderen.
3. Ik vind het belangrijk om mij bezig te houden met zaken die de werksfeer beïnvloeden. 4. Ik blijf op de hoogte over onderwerpen waarbij mijn mening mogelijk van belang kan
zijn voor de organisatie.
5. Ik opper nieuwe ideeën over werkwijzen of procedures.
Personality
Based on: Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18, 192-203.
Kunt u voor de volgende stellingen aangeven in hoeverre u het eens bent? Volledig Volledig Eens Oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ik ben een gangmaker op feesten
Ik voel mee met de gevoelens van anderen
Ik klaar klusjes meteen
Ik heb vaak stemmingswisselingen
Ik heb een levendige fantasie
Ik praat veel
Ik ben geïnteresseerd in andermans problemen
Ik zet dingen op de juiste plek terug
Ik ben meestal gestresst
Ik ben geïnteresseerd in abstracte ideeën
Ik praat met veel verschillende mensen op feestjes
Ik voel andermans emoties
Ik houd van geordendheid
Ik raak makkelijk van slag
Ik vind het makkelijk om abstracte ideeën te begrijpen
Table 14: Correlations: Key Variables Voice (E) Extraver sion (E) Agreeable ness (E) Conscientious ness (E) Neurotic ism (E) Opennes s (E) Voice (M) Extraver sion (M) Agreeable ness (M) Conscientious ness (M) Neurotic ism (M) Openness (M) Voice Employee Pearson Correlation 1 ,281 ** ,352** ,311** -,168* ,206** ,249** ,015 ,213** ,110 -,243** ,028 Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,000 ,000 ,013 ,002 ,000 ,832 ,002 ,118 ,000 ,695 N 216 216 216 216 216 216 198 202 202 202 202 202 Extraversion Employee Pearson Correlation ,281* * 1 ,183** -,060 ,090 ,299** ,054 ,089 ,073 ,154* -,120 ,032 Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,007 ,381 ,189 ,000 ,449 ,205 ,302 ,028 ,088 ,652 N 216 217 217 217 217 217 199 203 203 203 203 203 Agreeableness Employee Pearson Correlation ,352* * ,183 ** 1 ,339** -,065 ,145* ,073 ,032 ,164* ,219** -,231** ,006 Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,007 ,000 ,344 ,033 ,309 ,648 ,020 ,002 ,001 ,938 N 216 217 217 217 217 217 199 203 203 203 203 203 Conscientious ness Employee Pearson Correlation ,311* * -,060 ,339** 1 -,116 ,012 ,161* -,026 ,114 ,155* -,127 ,005 Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,381 ,000 ,088 ,857 ,023 ,717 ,104 ,027 ,070 ,948 N 216 217 217 217 217 217 199 203 203 203 203 203 Neuroticism Employee Pearson Correlation -,168* ,090 -,065 -,116 1 ,160* -,155* ,039 -,143* -,041 ,125 -,110 Sig. (2-tailed) ,013 ,189 ,344 ,088 ,018 ,029 ,576 ,041 ,561 ,076 ,118 N 216 217 217 217 217 217 199 203 203 203 203 203 Openness Employee Pearson Correlation ,206* * ,299** ,145* ,012 ,160* 1 -,029 -,045 -,060 ,068 -,067 ,133 Sig. (2-tailed) ,002 ,000 ,033 ,857 ,018 ,679 ,528 ,395 ,335 ,342 ,059 N 216 217 217 217 217 217 199 203 203 203 203 203 Voice Manager Pearson Correlation ,249* * ,054 ,073 ,161* -,155* -,029 1 ,083 ,190** -,046 ,053 -,044 Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,449 ,309 ,023 ,029 ,679 ,211 ,004 ,491 ,426 ,512 N 198 199 199 199 199 199 229 229 229 229 229 229 Extraversion Manager Pearson Correlation ,015 ,089 ,032 -,026 ,039 -,045 ,083 1 ,246 ** -,039 ,023 ,174** Sig. (2-tailed) ,832 ,205 ,648 ,717 ,576 ,528 ,211 ,000 ,557 ,724 ,008 N 202 203 203 203 203 203 229 233 233 233 233 233 Agreeableness Manager Pearson Correlation ,213* * ,073 ,164* ,114 -,143* -,060 ,190** ,246** 1 ,158* -,124 ,353** Sig. (2-tailed) ,002 ,302 ,020 ,104 ,041 ,395 ,004 ,000 ,016 ,058 ,000 N 202 203 203 203 203 203 229 233 233 233 233 233 Conscientious ness Manager Pearson Correlation ,110 ,154 * ,219** ,155* -,041 ,068 -,046 -,039 ,158* 1 -,183** -,097 Sig. (2-tailed) ,118 ,028 ,002 ,027 ,561 ,335 ,491 ,557 ,016 ,005 ,142 N 202 203 203 203 203 203 229 233 233 233 233 233 Neuroticism Manager Pearson Correlation -,243* * -,120 -,231 ** -,127 ,125 -,067 ,053 ,023 -,124 -,183** 1 -,074 Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,088 ,001 ,070 ,076 ,342 ,426 ,724 ,058 ,005 ,260 N 202 203 203 203 203 203 229 233 233 233 233 233 Openness Manager Pearson Correlation ,028 ,032 ,006 ,005 -,110 ,133 -,044 ,174 ** ,353** -,097 -,074 1 Sig. (2-tailed) ,695 ,652 ,938 ,948 ,118 ,059 ,512 ,008 ,000 ,142 ,260 N 202 203 203 203 203 203 229 233 233 233 233 233
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
