Individual Adaptive Performance: Personality, the mediating Role of Change Self-Efficacy and moderating Effect of Empowering Leadership
Master Thesis, Master of Science, Human Resource Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
Individual Adaptive Performance: Personality, the mediating Role of Change Self-Efficacy and moderating Effect of Empowering Leadership
ABSTRACT
Adaptive performance describes a facet of performance that reflects the modification of existing behaviours for meeting the demands of altering situations. In a world in constant flux, the identification of individuals who adapt to changing demands helps organizations in gaining competitive advantages. Using regression analyses on cross-sectional data, the purpose of this study grounded on understanding individual differences that engender performance adaptation by delineating personality as antecedent. Mediating and moderating variables were considered in a process-based approach to support a comprehensive account. First, openness to experiences, conscientiousness and emotional stability were examined as predictors of adaptive performance. The results demonstrated strong direct positive effects. Second, previous conceptualizations were extended through assessing the mediating role of change-specific self-efficacy. It appeared that this construct acts as psychological mechanism through which personality transforms into adaptation. Finally, it was assumed that empowering leadership nurtures employee’s change-related self-efficacy on facilitating the expression of adaptive performance. This linkage could unexpectedly not be verified. Even though not all hypotheses were confirmed, the present findings disentangled important relationships concerning the complexity of performance adaptation. Important implications and future research directions can be derived from this study.
Keywords: Big Five Personality Traits; Change Self-Efficacy; Empowering Leadership;
INTRODUCTION
In a world in constant flux, organizations must deal with continuous and unparalleled changes (Madsen, Miller & John, 2005). As a consequence, organizational members are often confronted with circumstances considered as novel, unstable, unpredictable and complex (Kozlowski, Gully, Nason & Smith, 1999). To be successful under these dynamic conditions, employees need to be increasingly flexible, versatile and tolerant of uncertainty to perform effectively (Pulakos, Arad, Donovan & Plamondon, 2000). Hence, the concept of adaptive
performance has gained attention for reflecting an important facet of employee performance
(e.g., Hesketh & Neal, 1999; Pulakos, Schmitt, Dorsey, Arad, Borman & Hedge, 2002; Griffin & Hesketh, 2005). Pulakos et al. (2002) defined adaptive performance as the modification of existing behaviours for meeting the demands of altering situations. Being positioned to adapt is based on individuals with regard to their tendencies towards adaptation (Maynard, Kennedy & Sommer, 2015). Considering that the performance adaptation of employees might presently be more salient than ever (Huang, Ryan, Zabel & Palmer, 2014), it becomes important to investigate individual differences that stimulate adaptive behaviours.
performance to adapt, findings demonstrated diverse and contradicting effects (Jundt, Shoss & Huang, 2015; Park & Park, 2019). While some studies showed positive results for certain personality traits, others reported negative or no effects (e.g., Allworth & Hesketh, 1999; Pulakos et al., 2002; Griffin & Hesketh, 2003; Shoss, Witt & Vera, 2012). Not only are main effects of personality traits incongruent, present examinations also leave unexplained how (e.g., through what mechanisms) these traits influence adaptive performance. Underlying psychological processes need to be unravelled to fill this gap (e.g., Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Barrick, Stewart & Piotrowski, 2002; Tabak, Nguyen, Basuray & Darrow, 2009; De Feyter, Caers, Vigna & Berings, 2012). This paper attempts to replicate and extend previous research by elaborating the relationship between personality and adaptive performance through a mediating mechanism and the conditions under which the mediating effect may vary. This intends to shed more light on the role of personality, presented by the Big Five traits (McCrae & Costa, 1987; Barrick & Mount, 1991; McCrae, 2011), in determining adaptive performance in a process-based approach.
greater potential to explain variances in the examination of domain-specific feelings of mastery (Bandura, 1977), this research considers change-specific self-efficacy as key process. This concept describes one’s perceived ability to handle change (Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Exploring its effects might reveal underlying mechanisms of the relationship between personality traits and performance adaptation.
Theoretical and Practical Contribution
As a facet of performance that reflects enhanced competencies in response to change (Shoss et al., 2011), adaptive performance is both, theoretically and practically important to investigate. The purpose of this study is to ascertain the role of personality traits in predicting adaptive performance. Previous conceptual developments are expanded through assessing personality traits as distal construct and change-related self-efficacy as proximal construct in relation to adaptive performance. Moreover, analysing the moderating role of empowering leadership in the relation of change-related self-efficacy and adaptive performance contributes to the limited examination of the organizational context. From a theoretical perspective, scrutinizing the proposed framework can result in a novel scientific understanding. First, insights into previous contradictions about the relationship between personality and adaptive performance can be gained. Second, this research potentially clarifies how and when individual aspects impact employee’s behaviours towards adaptation. Therewith, an improvement of the precision of predictions about performance adaptation can be offered. In doing so, the paper intends to support practitioners in identifying individuals that are likely to display adaptive performance. This aids the recruiting and selection process, the construction of the staffing system for filling positions with appropriate employees and the design of training programs to improve performance adaptation. The study, furthermore, assists in shaping management practices in a way that enhances adaptation.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES Individual Adaptive Performance
are responsive to changing job requirements (Allworth & Hesketh, 1999; Pulakos et al., 2000; Thoresen, Bradley, Bliese & Thoresen, 2004; Griffin, Neal & Parker, 2007; Jundt et al., 2015). As a result, the concept of adaptive performance has gained attention to better grasp the dynamic nature of employee performance to offer practical guidance to organizations regarding the current rapidly changing business environment (Allworth & Hesketh, 1999; Hesketh & Neal, 1999; Pulakos et al., 2002; Griffin & Hesketh, 2005). In extension of this, individual adaptive performance can be defined as employee’s behavioural alterations in response to changing work situations (Hesketh & Neal, 1999; Pulakos et al., 2000). As a behaviour that leads a person to maintain performance during changes, Griffin and Hesketh (2003) found that adaptive performance includes both, proactive components (e.g., anticipatory actions regarding perceived future change) and reactive components (e.g., modifying one’s behaviour due to change). Taken as a whole, employees with higher adaptation are expected to execute a better job performance (Heslin, Carson & Vandewalle, 2009). This, particularly, pertains to workplaces undergoing changes as adaptable employees display enhanced competencies in response to shifting requirements (Le Pine et al., 2000; Shoss et al., 2011; Griffin & Hesketh, 2003).
Change Self-Efficacy as Predictor of Individual Adaptive Performance
the self-belief system uncovered that individual’s attitudes towards their capabilities differ across activity domains and situational conditions rather than manifest uniformly (Bandura, 2012). In view of this, exploring domain-related beliefs of efficacy and their effects on adaptive performance should benefit research through contributing precise elucidations (Jundt et al., 2015). Hence, from this point, change-related self-efficacy is utilized as a concept transcending general self-efficacy for the context of performance adaptation.
Change-related self-efficacy can be defined as an individual perception of the ability to handle change in a given situation and to function well despite requirements of organizational transformation (Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Demonstrating the meaningfulness of this notion, Conner (1992) advocated that individuals do not operate well in change scenarios when they are not confident about their aptitudes. Referring to that, employees who have low levels of change-related self-efficacy doubt their proficiency to counter the demands of an event of change. In doing so, they tend to concentrate on feelings of incompetence that is complemented by psychological distress and failure to deal with the situation. This produces substantial increases in appraising changing demands as threats to be avoided. In contrast, employees who have high levels of change-related efficacy are expected to face organizational change. As self-efficacious employees believe in their abilities to deal with change demands, they are unlikely to be distressed through feelings of inadequacy. This results in enhanced effort persistence to meet modification processes (Jimmieson, Terry & Callan, 2004). Therefore, it appears reasonable to propose, as follows, that employees high in change-related self-efficacy perform adaptively.
Hypothesis 1: Change-related self-efficacy is positively related to individual adaptive
Personality as Predictor of Individual Adaptive Performance and the mediating Role of Change Self-Efficacy
Acting as prime determinant of behaviour (Endler & Magnusson, 1976), it has long been assumed that personality traits dictate individual’s adaptation to the environment (Allport, 1937; Lazarus, 1961; Hettema, 1979). Fundamental components of personality are in the main hereditary as well as consistent over conditions and time (McCrae & Costa, 1999). They are generally viewed as stable tendencies to face situations in a particularly predetermined manner (House et al., 1996). In this vein, personality measures should provide a useful means of predicting stable characteristics in patterns of behaviour (Murphy, 2013) for adaptation. To investigate the effect of personality leading to individual adaptive performance, the Big Five personality traits are applied as directing framework. The model constitutes a widely accepted instrument that portrays personality variations along five dimensions (McCrae & Costa, 1987; Barrick & Mount, 1991; McCrae, 2011). This study spotlights the trait facets that previous research on adaptive performance predominantly illustrated – namely, openness to experiences, conscientiousness and emotional stability (Park & Park, 2019).
that attest to individual’s potentials in broad domains of functioning (McCrae & Costa, 1999), self-efficacy describes an individual’s regulation of behaviour in interaction with the dynamic environment (Bandura, 1997). Put differently, it is supposed that personality traits prime the availability of resources while self-efficacy determines the transformation of these into behaviour (Kanfer, 1990). In this way, self-efficacy beliefs may allow personality traits developing into performance, suggesting a mediating function for self-efficacy (e.g., Thoms, Moore & Scott, 1996; Judge, Jackson, Shaw, Scott & Rich, 2007). Derived therefrom, it is proposed that change-specific self-efficacy guides behavioural manifestations in the context of change. Hence, this construct may mediate the relationship between personality traits and adaptive performance.
Openness to Experiences and Change Self-Efficacy as Predictors
should influence change-related self-efficacy in that it broadens positive evaluations of one’s abilities to overcome change resistances. Hence, this trait characterizes individuals who perform successful in volatile environments (Le Pine et al., 2000). It seems likely that employees high in openness should be more adaptable to changing conditions.
Hypothesis 2a: Openness to experiences is positively related to individual adaptive
performance.
Hypothesis 2b: Change-related self-efficacy positively mediates the relationship between
openness to experiences and individual adaptive performance.
Conscientiousness and Change Self-Efficacy as Predictors
(Barrick, Mount & Strauss, 1993), self-discipline (Colquitt & Simmering, 1998) and perceived importance of goal attainment (Gellatly, 1996). Because highly conscientious individuals are eager to engage on tasks, they are more likely to expect task success (Chen et al., 2001) during organizational changes. The given determination of accomplishment enhances the belief about their performance capabilities (Barrick & Mount, 1991) regarding change. This, thereby, should enable employees to ambitiously strive for resolving arising obstacles during transformation processes and generate adaptive performance.
Hypothesis 3a: Conscientiousness is positively related to individual adaptive
performance.
Hypothesis 3b: Change-related self-efficacy positively mediates the relationship between
conscientiousness and individual adaptive performance.
Emotional Stability and Change Self-Efficacy as Predictors
orientation on tasks and increasing the willingness to engage in novel situations (Barrick & Mount, 2009). The propensity to stay level-headed in the face of change difficulties (Pulakos et al., 2000) may facilitate the perception of change-related self-efficacy (Barrick & Mount, 2009). This should lead to adequate reactions in conjunction with alterations (Huang et al., 2014) by furthering the adaptation to changes in the workplace.
Hypothesis 4a: Emotional stability is positively related to individual adaptive
performance.
Hypothesis 4b: Change-related self-efficacy positively mediates the relationship between
emotional stability and individual adaptive performance.
The moderating Effect of Empowering Leadership
According to social cognitive theory, an important belief system is concerned with individual’s perceptions about the extent of personal control one can exercise over the environment (Gurin & Brim, 1984; Bandura, 1986). It concerns the changeableness of the environment through one’s own actions. Belief systems about the modifiability of the environment can affect the extent to which individuals are able to exploit potential situational opportunities (Bandura, 1988). Environments differ in their possibility structures and, thus, in their inducement of control beliefs. Accordingly, environments designate enhancements and constraints available for employees to practice self-efficacy for performance attainment (Wood & Bandura, 1989). In light of this, domain-specific self-efficacy depends on facets of the environment and might be amplified through organizational interventions (Bandura, 2012). In this paper, it is proposed that empowering leadership is a factor that evokes feelings of control. In this manner, it might act as a moderator by nurturing employee’s change-related self-efficacy on facilitating the expression of adaptive performance.
Dionne, Spain & Tsai, 2018). It acts to empower employees through the allocation of necessary power over the dynamic work environment (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). Thereby, empowering leaders induce beliefs of control over change that provides the opportunity to subordinates to fully exercise their personal change-related efficacy for performance adaptation. In response, self-efficacious employees might feel more confident to cope with demands of change situations and, thus, to exercise their abilities to adapt performance. This results in expending more effort and preserving in the attempts to adapt to changes. As a result, the likelihood to be successful in dealing with a changing situation is enhanced. Experiences of success, in turn, generate positive behavioural validations of personal change-related self-efficacy for performance adaptation. This might strengthen the relationship between change-related self-efficacy and adaptive performance (Wood & Bandura, 1989).
Conversely, the absence of empowering leadership implies an uncontrollable dynamic work environment for subordinates. Therewith induced beliefs of non-control over change indicate limited opportunities and numerous constraints for subordinates to exert their personal change-related efficacy for performance adaptation. In approaching an unmodifiable context, employees may be hampered in exercising their change-related efficacy. This leads to failure which, over time, takes a cumulative negative impact on one’s perceived change-related self-efficacy regarding adaptation. Thus, even employees feeling confident in their change-related abilities might believe to be inefficacious to adapt performance (Wood & Bandura, 1989). Conclusively, exhibiting empowering practices might uncover as an organizational resource that reinforces the effect of employee’s change-related efficacy on accommodating performance strategies as incidents warrant.
Hypothesis 5: The perception of empowering leadership moderates the relationship
between change-related self-efficacy and individual adaptive performance, such that the
positivity of this relationship increases as soon as the perception of empowering leadership is
Given the elaborated hypotheses above, the following moderated-mediation effect is proposed to occur:
Hypothesis 6: Change-related self-efficacy positively mediates the relationships between
openness to experiences (Hypothesis 6a), conscientiousness (Hypothesis 6b), emotional stability
(Hypothesis 6c) and individual adaptive performance that are moderated by the perception of
empowering leadership, such that the positivity of these relationships increases as soon as the
perception of empowering leadership is rather high than low.
Figure 1: Conceptual Model
METHODOLOGY Data Collection
This study applied surveys as quantitative instrument because they are argued to be the most appropriate method for testing hypotheses (Dillman, 2000). In order to gather cross-sectional data, an online questionnaire was conducted amongst 220 hired employees based on widely adopted and well-validated instruments to measure all study variables. Prolific Academic was used as online platform for distributing the survey to address the targeted audience and receive high quality data (Peer, Brandimarte, Samat & Acquisti, 2017).
Common Method Variance
As the collection method solely relied on self-reports, a limiting common method variance may inflate relationships between study variables (Podsakoff & Todor, 1985; Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Podsakoff, 2012). Although this is the case, it is commonly acknowledged that individuals have certain forms of privileged access to information about own experiences, intentions and motives that others might not be aware of (Craik, 2007). This concerns notably self-efficacy as a privately perceived state that is only accessible to the individual possessing these beliefs (Caprara, Vecchione, Alessandri, Gerbino & Barbaranelli, 2011). Furthermore, researchers have reported fair degrees of correlations (ranging from r .30 to .55) between self- and other-reports regarding personality traits (Ready & Clark, 2002). Besides, self-reports (r = .35) have been found to moderately correlate with supervisory ratings of performance (Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988) suggesting a reasonable degree of construct validity for adaptive performance. Therefore, self-reports were regarded as appropriate method for this study. Nevertheless, evidence of the reliability of the assessment device must be further established (John & Benet-Martinez, 2014).
Measurements
The operationalization of the main variables is introduced in the following. A five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (5) was deployed for all variables with exception of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960).
Big Five personality traits were evaluated based on Goldberg’s International Personality Item Pool (IPIP; Goldberg, 1999; α = .739). This personality inventory is based on the five-factor model and demonstrated to be interchangeable with the NEO-FFI (Lim & Ployhart, 2006). Respectively five items for (a) openness to experiences (example item: “I have a vivid imagination”; α = .642), (b) conscientiousness (example item: “I am always prepared”; α = .743) and (c) emotional stability (example item: “I get stressed out easily”; α = .857) were selected. It needs to be documented that emotional stability was appraised through its equivalent neuroticism (Costa & McCrae, 1988).
Change-related self-efficacy was measured asking participants to make generalized judgments of efficacy about organizational changes to reflect their perceived self-competency to deal with such situations (see Ashford, 1988). The mastery of changing environments was estimated through the adjustment of the scale about general self-efficacy (eight items; α = .883; example item: “I am able to achieve most of the change goals that I have set for myself”) by means of Chen et al. (2001).
believes that I can handle demanding tasks”) and (d) providing autonomy from bureaucratic constraints (three items; example item: “My manager allows me to do my job my way”).
Adaptive performance was measured utilizing the developed scale by Charbonnie-Voirin, Akremi and Vandenberghe (2010) that contains five different subdimension (α = .879) incorporating (a) handling emergencies and unpredictable situations (four items; example item: “I keep focused on the situation to react quickly”), (b) handling work stress (three items; example item: “I seek solutions by talking to more experienced colleagues”), (c) solving problems creatively (four items; example item: “I try to develop new methods for solving atypical problems”), (d) learning (four items; example item: “I search for innovations in my job so as to improve work methods”) and (e) demonstrating interpersonal adaptability (four items; example item: “I try to consider others’ viewpoints to better interact with them”).
items; example item: “Recently, a transformation of the corporate organization’s culture was initiated”) were incorporated.
Social desirability can bias self-reports on performance as a source of method bias (Arnold & Feldman, 1981; Spector, 1987). Social desirability represents the need for social approval and acceptance as well as the belief that this can be accomplished through culturally appropriate behaviours (Marlowe & Crowne, 1961). To control for this potential favouritism in participant’s responses, a shortened version of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960; ten items; α = .469; example item: “I never hesitate to go out of my way to help someone in trouble”) was adopted. Participants had to decide whether the statements are true or false as it pertains to them personally (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960).
Attention checks were employed for indicating data quality. As technique for detecting careless responses, they intend to sense participants who are not attentive through providing suboptimal responses to attention checks and, consequently, to other survey items (Liu & Wronski, 2018). In addition, a trap question (item: “Which of the following is your favourite sport to watch? This is a data quality check. Regardless of your true preference, please select Basketball”) was included following Liu and Wronski (2018).
Data Analysis
RESULTS Reliability Measurement
This research scrutinized the reliability of the measurements by calculating the internal consistency.
The internal consistency of each construct was estimated with Cronbach’s alpha. All study variables, in exception of openness to experiences (α = .642) and social desirability (α = .469), showed the Cronbach’s alpha to be satisfactorily as the coefficients surpassed the criterion threshold of α > .70 (Nunnally, 1978). Notwithstanding that the quantified alpha coefficient of openness to experience is considered as not being ideal, it is still an appropriate instrument for an exploratory study. Therefore, the items proposed to measure the variable were applied, even though the data’s generalizability might be questionable on account of the low reliability indications. For social desirability, the reliability coefficient showed to be inacceptable why social desirability was excluded from further analysis (Cortina, 1993).
Descriptive Analysis
The sample consisted of 277 participants in total. As solely 257 participants were in an employment relationship at this time, 20 respondents were filtered through a pre-screen. In addition, five responses were excluded from further analysis due to their incompleteness. Additional reductions were undertaken as 26 participants were unsuccessful in passing the trap question and six participants failed to answer at least two attention checks correctly. As a conclusion, the sample size of this research counted 220 participants (N = 220). It comprised 109 males (49,5%) and 111 females (50,5%). The recorded age ranged from 18 to 61 years with an average of 30.36 years (Mage = 30.36, SD = 8.539). The educational background was itemized
Common Method Variance
Harman’s one-factor analysis was used for controlling for a potential bias in employee reports. For this technique, all study items were loaded into an explanatory factor analysis. An unrotated factor solution was examined to determine the amount of factors that were necessary to account for the variance in the variables. The assumption is that as soon a substantial amount of common method variance is existing, one general factor accounts for the majority of the covariance (more than 50%) among the measures (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003). Carrying out this method resulted in a total variance for a single factor of about 23%. This extracted single factor is lower than 50%. Therefore, a distortion by common method variance was not a pervasive issue in this study (Chang, van Witteloostuijn & Eden, 2010).
Bivariate Correlations
To determine the strength of the linear correlations of the study variables, the Pearson product-moment correlation was applied (Table 1).
The findings stressed a significant interrelation of change-related self-efficacy (r = .684, p = .000) and adaptive performance. Moreover, openness to experiences (r = .389, p = .000), conscientiousness (r = .382, p = .000) and emotional stability (r = .291, p = .000) significantly correlated with adaptive performance. Likewise, all personality traits (openness to experiences,
r = .302, p = .000; conscientiousness, r = .396, p = .000; emotional stability, r = .381, p = .000)
with emotional stability (r = -.153, p = .023) and a positive relationship with adaptive performance (r = .203, p = .003).
TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics
Notes: N = 220; *p < .05; **p < .01; ¹gender was coded “1” for males and “2” for females; 2age was coded in years; 3educational degree was coded “1” for no degree, “2” for high school degree, “3” for college degree, “4” for academic degree.
Regression Analysis
The direct Effect of Change Self-Efficacy and Personality on Individual Adaptive Performance
For analysing the direct effect of change-related self-efficacy (Hypothesis 1), openness to experiences (Hypothesis 2a), conscientiousness (Hypothesis 3a) and emotional stability (Hypothesis 4a) on adaptive performance, regression analyses were conducted (Table 2).
The results (R2 = .498, F(5, 214) = 42.443, p = .000) quantified a significant positive
relationship of change-related self-efficacy (B = .524, p = .000) with adaptive performance which supports Hypothesis 1. Thus, higher degrees of change-related self-efficacy result in higher adaptive performance. Furthermore, the regression analyses (openness to experiences, R2 = .224, F(5, 214) = 12.338, p = .000; conscientiousness, R2 = .210, F(5, 214) = 11.369, p = .000; emotional stability, R2 = .173, F(5, 214) = 8.970, p = .000) revealed significant positive
relationships between the personality traits openness to experiences (B = .307, p = .000), conscientiousness (B = .277, p = .000), emotional stability (B = .181, p = .000) and adaptive performance. Therewith, Hypothesis 2a, Hypothesis 3a and Hypothesis 4a could be accepted. It implies that higher levels of openness to experiences, conscientiousness and emotional stability lead to an increase of adaptive performance.
TABLE 2 Direct Relationships
Notes: N = 220; *p < .10, **p < .05, ***p < .001; dependent variable (DP); unstandardized beta (B); standard errors between parentheses (SE); R-squared
(R2); adjusted R-squared (ΔR²).
The Mediation of Change Self-Efficacy on Personality and Individual Adaptive Performance
The indirect influence of change-related self-efficacy on the relationships between openness to experiences (Hypothesis 2b), conscientiousness (Hypothesis 3b), emotional stability (Hypothesis 4b) and adaptive performance were measured on basis of the PROCESS method by Hayes (2015; Table 3). To conduct causal processes, this method applies an ordinary least
DV: Adaptive Performance
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
B(SE) B(SE) B(SE) B(SE) B(SE)
squares regression to evaluate unstandardized path coefficients for direct, indirect and total effects. In addition, bootstrapping with 5.000 iterations calculate confidence intervals (Hayes, 2018). Hypothesized effects are considered as significant under the prerequisite that given confidence intervals do not include zero (Hayes, 2015).
First, it was observed that the personality traits openness to experiences (B = .307, p = .000), conscientiousness (B = .277, p = .000) and emotional stability (B = .181, p = .000) significantly affect adaptive performance. After entering the mediator into the model, the effect of the predictors on the mediator was calculated. The results showed that openness to experiences (B = .295, p = .000), conscientiousness (B = .373, p = .000) and emotional stability (B = .284, p = .000) significantly relate to change-specific self-efficacy. Assessing the connection between the mediator and criterion variable revealed change-related self-efficacy (in the analysis of openness to experiences, B = .476, p = .000; in the analysis of conscientiousness,
B = .486, p = .000; in the analysis of emotional stability, B = .505, p = .000), in turn, to be a
TABLE 3 Mediating Relationships
Notes: N = 220; *p < .10, **p < .05, ***p < .001; dependent variable (DP); adaptive performance (AP); change self-efficacy (CSE); unstandardized beta (B); standard errors between parentheses (SE); R-squared (R2);
adjusted R-squared (ΔR²); 1based on 5.000 bootstraps.
DV: AP DV: AP DV: CSE DV: AP DV: AP DV: CSE DV: AP DV:AP DV: CSE DV: AP
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9 Model 10
B(SE) B(SE) B(SE) B(SE) B(SE) B(SE) B(SE) B(SE) B(SE) B(SE)
Intercept 2.239(.253)*** 1.635(.253)*** 1.572(.337)*** .887(.206)*** 1.646(.257)*** 1.356(.326)*** .989(.211)*** 1.695(.267)*** 1.296(.332)*** 1.040(.215)*** Control Variables Gender .081(.068) .047(.063) .115(.084) -.007(.049) .079(.063) .144(.080)* .009(.050) -.029(.069) -.026(.085) -.016(.053) Age -.010(.004)** -.011(.004)** -.009(.005)* -.006(003)** -.011(.004)** -.009(.005)* -.006(.003)** -.007(.004)* -.033(.005) -.005(.003)* Educational Degree -.059(.045) -.045(.042) -.044(.056) -.025(.032) -.036(.042) -.026(.054) -.024(.033) -.060(.043) -.058(.054) -.031(.034) Change Frequency .121(.040)** .110(.037)** .070(.049) .077(.029)** .100(.037)** .051(.047) .075(.029)** .140(.038)*** .109(.047)** .084(.030)** Model Variables Openness to Experiences .307(.050)*** .295(.066)*** .166(.040)*** Conscientiousness .277(.048)*** .373(.060)*** .096(.041)** Emotional Stability .181(.038)*** .284(.047)*** .037(.032) Change Self-Efficacy .476(0.40)*** .486(.042)*** .505(.043)*** Indirect Effect1 Effect .140(.041) .181(.038) .144(.028)
LLCI = .069 LLCI = .116 LLCI = .090
ULCI = .226 ULCI =.261 ULCI =.199
R² .085 .224 .121 .535 .210 .184 .511 .173 .179 .501
The moderating Effect of Empowering Leadership
For evaluating the moderation of empowering leadership on the relationship between change-related self-efficacy and adaptive performance (Hypothesis 5), a moderated regression analysis was performed. An overview of the results is presented in Table 4.
The proposed positive correlation between change-related self-efficacy (B = .524, p = .000) and adaptive performance showed to be significant. The analysis was extended by including empowering leadership (B = .170, p = .000) which demonstrated to be positively significant in connection with adaptive performance. To test a possible moderation (R2 = .558, F(7, 212) = 38.262, p = .000), the interaction effect between change-related self-efficacy and
empowering leadership in predicting adaptive performance was analysed next. At first glance, the results further presented empowering leadership (B = .223, p = .021) to be significantly related to adaptive performance. Nonetheless, the interaction effect itself revealed to be insignificant (B = -.025, p = .558). Hence, it was assumed that empowering leadership does not act as moderator in the relationship between change-related self-efficacy and adaptive performance. Thus, Hypothesis 5 could not be verified.
It should be noted that the results yielded a significant direct impact of empowering leadership (R2 = .180, F(5, 214) = 9,382, p = .000) on change-related self-efficacy (B = .302, p = .000) and of empowering leadership (R2 = .307, F(5, 214) = 18.961, p = .000) on adaptive
performance (B = .303, p = .000). It was, therefore, expected that the effect of empowering leadership on performance adaptation may be mediated through change-related self-efficacy. To test this potential connection, further explorations were conducted in addition to the hypothesized relationships. The PROCESS method (Hayes, 2015) was performed for the mediation analysis that showed to be statistically significant (R2 = .747, F(6, 213) = 44.719, p =
leadership continued predicting adaptive performance significantly with reduced effect (B = .170, p = .000, indirect effect from = .133, 95%-CI[.077, .195]). This revealed that the relationship between empowering leadership and performance adaptation is partially mediated by change-related self-efficacy.
TABLE 4
Moderating Relationships
Notes: N = 220; *p < .10, **p < .05, ***p < .001; dependent variable (DP); adaptive performance (AP); change self-efficacy (CSE); unstandardized
beta (B); standard errors between parentheses (SE); R-squared (R2); adjusted R-squared (ΔR²).
The Moderated-Mediation Model
The moderated-mediation model was carried out with the PROCESS method by Hayes (2015; Table 5). The core of the test is the quantification of the association between a mediating and moderating effect – namely, “index of moderated-mediation”. This is inferred from the evaluation as to whether the confidence intervals include zero (Hayes, 2015).
DV: AP DV: CSE DV: AP
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
B(SE) B(SE) B(SE) B(SE) B(SE) B(SE)
TABLE 5
Moderated-Mediated Relationships
Notes: N = 220; *p < .10, ** p < .05, ***p < .001; dependent variable (DP); unstandardized beta (B); standard errors between parentheses (SE);
R-squared (R2); adjusted R-squared (ΔR²); 1based on 5.000 bootstraps.
As the confidence intervals showed to contain zero, the analyses (for openness to experiences, R2 = .601, F(8, 211) = 39.685, p = .000; for conscientiousness, R2 = .564, F(8, 211)
= 34.133, p = .000; for emotional stability, R2 = .559, F(8, 211) = 33.422, p = .000) revealed insignificant indexes of moderated-mediation for openness to experiences (B = -.004, 95%CI[.031, .025]), conscientiousness (B = .004, 95%CI[.036, .032]) and emotional stability (B = -.007, 95%-CI[-.033, .022]) in predicting adaptive performance. Concluding, the impact of
DV: Adaptive Performance
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
B(SE) B(SE) B(SE)
Intercept 1.826(.186)*** 2.039(.197)*** 2.132(.200)*** Control Variables Gender .021(.046) .034(.048) .021(.051) Age -.006(.003)** -.006(.003)** -.005(.003)* Educational Degree -.017(.030) -.019(.032) -.024(.032) Change Frequency .074(.027)** .073(.028)** .079(.028)** Model Variables Openness to Experiences .178(.030)*** Conscientiousness .067(.040)* Emotional Stability .018(.030) Change Self-Efficacy .387(.040)*** .419(.043)*** .436(.043)*** Empowering Leadership .178(.030)*** .162(.032)*** .166(.032)*** Moderation
Change Self-Efficacy x Empowering
Leadership -.012(.041) -.012(.043) -.026(.043)
Index of Moderated-Mediation1
Empowering Leadership -.004(.014) -.004(.017) -.007(.014) LLCI = -.031 LLCI = -.036 LLCI = -.033
ULCI = .025 ULCI = .032 ULCI = .022
personality traits on adaptive performance is not mediated by change-related self-efficacy while being moderated by empowering leadership. Accordingly, no evidence for a moderated-mediation effect could be discovered. Therefore, Hypothesis 6 (including Hypothesis, 6a, Hypothesis 6b and Hypothesis 6c) was rejected.
DISCUSSION
With the growing significance of adaptive performance in today’s workplace, the identification of individuals who adapt to changing situations aids organizations in gaining competitive advantages (Huang et al., 2014). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to replicate and extend previous research by delineating the role of personality traits in predicting adaptive performance and the mediating effect of change-related self-efficacy in this association. Moreover, the moderating impact of empowering leadership on the relationship between change-related self-efficacy and performance adaptation was determined. This investigation enriches current literature on the effects of personality traits on adaptive performance. It adds to a better understanding of whether, how and when individual differences predict adaptation. Several interesting relationships could be revealed in this research by either confirmed or rejected hypotheses.
Theoretical Implications of the Results
environmental modifications as challenges to be mastered rather than challenges to be avoided (Jimmieson et al., 2004). This could provide reason for the increased probability that employees adapt their performance to overcome difficulties stemming from changes. Inversely, employees who have low levels of change-related self-efficacy disbelieve in their proficiency to counteract change events. Resulting feelings of inadequacy cause them to regard changes as discouraging threats (Jimmieson et al., 2004). This seemed to hamper the execution of actions needed to meet the demands of altering environments leading to maladaptive behaviours.
explain conscientiousness leading to higher adaptation. Third, individuals need to approach potentially threatening transitions to appropriately cope with changes in the workplace (Huang et al., 2014). In accordance with past studies (e.g., Pulakos et al., 2002; Neal et al., 2012; Huang et al., 2014), the quantitative results showed emotional stability to be interrelated with adaptive performance (Hypothesis 4b). Emotional stability mitigates stressful effects during organizational transformations through the propensity to stay level-headed (Pulakos et al., 2002). This reflects an inclination to face changes (Huang et al., 2014) that should foster the tendency to adapt performance. Taken together, the study results imply that personality traits are crucial predictors that explain adaptive performance. Understanding personality traits as stable behavioural tendencies (House et al., 1996) shows that personality determines levels of adaptive performance.
To map the interaction between individual differences and environment, empowering leadership was examined as moderating environmental boundary condition that could affect change-related self-efficacy’s role on adaptive behaviour (Hypothesis 5). Unexpectedly, the interaction effect of increases in change-related self-efficacy and empowering leadership on augmentations in adaptive performance was not significant in this study. An explanation for this inconclusive finding could be that managerial empowerment plays a different role within the model. This was assumed based on the significant correlations between empowering leadership with change-related self-efficacy and adaptive performance (see Table 4). Further explorations uncovered that change-related self-efficacy operates as intervening variable through which managerial empowerment translates into performance adaptation (see Results section). This is in line with recent suggestions (e.g., Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Prussia, Anderson & Manz, 1998; Ahearne et al., 2005) that the effects of empowering leadership on performance outcomes are mediated by self-efficacy. Hence, it is likely that empowering processes implement conditions that impact subordinate’s change-related self-efficacy which, in turn, influences adaptive performance.
Practical Implications of the Results
With organizations in need for adaptive employees (Schmitt & Chan, 2014), it is essential to recruit appropriate candidates and train employees (Hitt, Keats & DeMarie, 1998). In that respect, this study yields several practical contributions. Further explorations provide implications for shaping management practices for which additional replication is needed.
performance. This provides additional support for the utility of personality tests in personnel selection (Goldberg, 1993; Hogan, Hogan & Roberts, 1996). As part of the screening process in hiring decisions, organizations operating under complex environments should assess the candidate’s level of openness to experiences, conscientiousness and emotional stability to better predict performance adaptation. Concluding, change-related self-efficacy and personality traits should be included as criteria in selection batteries for identifying employees who adapt performance.
Second, organizations can utilize the findings to design training programs in light of the impact of change-related self-efficacy on employee’s adaptation. Knowing that employees high in change-related self-efficacy are more prone to show adaptive behaviours suggests that trainings should be modified to inculcate this critical component. Therefore, training programs need to be geared towards bolstering employee’s confidence in their abilities to accommodate changes for improving adaptive performance.
Limitations
This study is limited in several aspects that should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results. First, responses on adaptive performance were solely obtained from self-reports. This has possibly inflated observed relationships causing a common method bias (Podsakoff & Todor, 1985). However, design steps were initiated for dealing with issues of common method variance in this study. Furthermore, a post-hoc analysis confirmed that method effects were not a significant threat to the data analyses. Nonetheless, the utilization of single sources as instrument for data collection might have affected the results.
Second, social desirability has probably biased self-reports (Arnold & Feldman, 1981; Spector, 1987). To address the presence of this method bias, the intended execution of evaluating social desirability was omitted due to the low Cronbach’s alpha of its scale. Therefore, the respondents’ tendency to choose the socially desirable responses, regardless of the veracity of the responses, needs to be acknowledged as potential constraint of this study (Spector, 1987).
Third, a cross-sectional study design was used instead of a longitudinal study design due to time restrictions. The primary limitation of cross-sectional studies is the measurement of data at a specific point in time. Memory bias are likely to inflate the results causing a contamination of the reported relationships by reverse causality for answers being recollections of past events, thoughts and feelings (Agote, Aramburu & Lines, 2016). This only allows establishing inferences but not causality between significant variables (Lazarus, 2003; Chew & Chan, 2008; Agote et al., 2016). Therefore, longitudinal studies that replicate similar measurements at various points in time would allow stronger examinations of causality among study constructs (Charbonnie-Voirin et al., 2010).
questionable reliability, the scale is still an adequate instrument for an exploratory study. Nonetheless, caution is needed when interpreting the study results (Cortina, 1993).
Future Research Directions
Additional research is required as this study leaves much unknown about the functioning of personality traits towards adaptive performance. In the following, several directions for future research are proposed.
First, this study focused on personality traits at the construct level rather than the facet level. Several studies have suggested that every personality trait is composed of different dimensions (e.g., Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996; Sackett & Lievens, 2008). As narrowly defined personality traits have clear behavioural connotations, they allow the assessment of more fine-grained measurements in the prediction of performance (Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996). Therefore, it is possible to obtain greater clarity in linking personality and adaptive performance by examining specific trait facets. Future research should construe a narrower delineation of the dimensionality of personality traits for investigating performance adaptation. This might advance insights about the contribution of personality traits to adaptive performance (Le Pine et al., 2000; Griffin & Hesketh, 2005; Neal, Yeo, Koy & Xiao, 2012). Preliminary, the present study establishes the foundation for elucidating the effects of broadly defined personality traits on adaptive performance. This can serve as foundation for generating hypotheses about facet-level analyses in subsequent theoretical developments (Neal et al., 2012).
Third, this study demonstrated change-related self-efficacy being a central motivational mechanism that links personality traits to adaptive performance. This suggests that motivational mechanisms are fruitful mediators. More empirical work is needed that comprehensively examines the relationship among personality traits, motivational constructs and adaptive performance. Accomplishment striving (Barrick et al., 2002), goal setting (Barrick et al., 1993) and regulatory focus (Wallace & Chen, 2006) are only a few examples of the proximal states that could be further analysed. The replication of this study using other psychological mechanisms should illuminate the processes through which personality traits affect adaptive performance.
Fourth, the role of the context is gaining increasing importance in organizational research based on positing an interaction between individuals and situational cues (e.g., Rousseau & Fried, 2001; Johns, 2006). Environments consist of situational opportunities and constraints that affect the occurrence of organizational behaviour (Johns, 2006). Although empowering leadership could not be identified as necessary situational moderator in this investigation, exploratory frameworks need to be broadened to approximate the impact of change realities on individuals (Herold et al., 2007). This stresses the identification of the relative influence of both, individual differences and moderating contextual variables on adaptive performance (Stokes et al., 2010; Baard et al., 2014; Jundt et al., 2015). Therefore, future research should include environmental elements that may affect individuals, such as an organization’s culture, resources available to support changes and organization’s change history (Herold et al., 2007).
mediator through which managerial empowerment translates into performance adaptation. Research should explore why managerial empowerment impacts adaptive performance and for whom this effect can be strengthened or mitigated. Thereby, conditions under which organizational leadership facilitates individual adaptive performance can be examined.
CONCLUSION
This study attempted to provide insights into the relationship of personality and adaptive performance. To adequately investigate this linkage, mediating and moderating variables were accounted in a process-based approach. First, the results underscored the salience of personality traits (openness to experiences, conscientiousness and emotional stability) as stable behavioural tendencies which predicted adaptive performance. Second, change-related self-efficacy explained the influence that personality traits have on adaptive performance. Finally, the moderating effect of empowering leadership on the association between personality traits and change-specific self-efficacy was unexpectedly nonsignificant.
LIST OF REFERENCES
Agote, L., Aramburu, N., & Lines, R. 2016. Authentic leadership perception, trust in the leader, and followers’ emotions in organizational change processes. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 52(1): 35–63. doi:10.1177/0021886315617531
Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. 2005. To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5): 945–955. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.945
Allport, G. W. 1937. Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Allworth, E., & Hesketh, B. 1999. Construct-oriented biodata: Capturing change-related and contextually relevant future performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 7(2): 97–111. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00110
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. 1993. Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6): 681–703. doi:10.1177/001872679304600601
Arnold, H. J., & Feldman, D. C. 1981. Social desirability response bias in self-report choice situations. Academy of Management Journal, 24(2): 377–385. doi:10.2307/255848 Ashford, S. J. 1988. Individual strategies for coping with stress during organizational transitions.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 24(1): 19–36. doi:10.1177/0021886388241005 Baard, S. K., Rench, T. A., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. 2014. Performance adaptation: A theoretical
review. Journal of Management, 40(1): 48–99. doi:10.1177/0149206313488210 Bandura, A. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84(2): 191–215. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191
Bandura, A. 1988. Organisational applications of social cognitive theory. Australian Journal of Management, 13(2): 275–302. doi:10.1177/031289628801300210
Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Bandura, A. 2012. On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management, 38(1): 9–44. doi:10.1177/0149206311410606
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. 1981. Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(3): 586–598. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.41.3.586
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. 1991. The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1): 1–26. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. 2005. Yes, personality matters: Moving on to more important matters. Human Performance, 18(4): 359–372. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1804_3 Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. 2009. Select on conscientiousness and emotional stability. In E.
A. Locke (Eds.), Handbook of organizational behaviour: Indispensable knowledge for evidence-based management (2nd ed.): 19–39. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Li, N. 2013. The theory of purposeful work behavior: The role
of personality, higher-order goals, and job characteristics. Academy of Management Review, 38(1): 132–153. doi:10.5465/amr.2010.0479
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. P. 1993. Conscientiousness and performance of sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5): 715–722. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.5.715
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. 2008. Active learning: Effects of core training design elements on self-regulatory processes, learning, and adaptability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2): 296–316. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.296
Caldwell, S., & Liu, Y. 2011. Further investigating the influence of personality in employee response to organisational change: The moderating role of change-related factors. Human Resource Management Journal, 21(1): 74–89. doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2010.00127.x
Caprara, G. V., Vecchione, M., Alessandri, G., Gerbino, M., & Barbaranelli, C. 2011. The contribution of personality traits and self-efficacy beliefs to academic achievement: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1): 78–96. doi:10.1348/2044-8279.002004
Chang, S.-J., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. 2010. From the editors: Common method variance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2): 178–184. doi:10.1057/jibs.2009.88
Charbonnie-Voirin, A., Akremi, A., & Vandenberghe C. 2010. A multilevel model of transformational leadership and adaptive performance and the moderating role of climate for innovation. Group & Organization Management, 35(6): 699–726. doi:10.1177/1059601110390833
Chen, G., Casper, W. J., & Cortina, J. M. 2001. The roles of self-efficacy and task complexity in the relationships among cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and work-related performance: A meta-analytic examination. Human Performance, 14(3): 209–230. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1403_1
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. 2001. Validation of a new generalized self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4(1): 62–83. doi:10.1177/109442810141004
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. 2004. General self-efficacy and self-esteem: Toward theoretical and empirical distinction between correlated self-evaluations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3): 375–395. doi:10.1002/job.251
Cheong, M., Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Spain, S. M., & Tsai, C.-Y. 2018. A review of the effectiveness of empowering leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1): 34–58. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.08.005
Chew, J., & Chan, C. C. A. 2008. Human resource practices, organizational commitment and intention to stay. International Journal of Manpower, 29(6): 503–522. doi:10.1108/01437720810904194
Colquitt, J. A., & Simmering, M. J. 1998. Conscientiousness, goal orientation, and motivation to learn during the learning process: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4): 654–665. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.4.654
Combs, A. W., Miser, A. B., & Whitaker, K. S. 1999. On becoming a school leader: A person-centered challenge. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. 1988. The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3): 471–482. doi:10.5465/amr.1988.4306983
Conner, D. R. 1992. Managing at the speed of change: How resilient managers succeed and prosper where others fail. New York: Villard Books.
Cortina, J. M. 1993. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1): 98–104. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. 1988. From catalog to classification: Murray’s needs and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(2): 258–265. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.2.258
Craik, K. H. 2007. Taxonomies, trends, and integrations. In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley & R. F. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology: 209–223. London: The Guilford Press.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. 1960. A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4): 349–354. doi:10.1037/h0047358
Decker, D., Wheeler, G. E., Johnson, J., & Parsons, R. J. 2001. Effect of organizational change on the individual employee. The Health Care Manager, 19(4): 1–12. doi:10.1097/00126450-200119040-00002
De Feyter, T., Caers, R., Vigna, C., & Berings, D. 2012. Unraveling the impact of the Big Five personality traits on academic performance: The moderating and mediating effects of self-efficacy and academic motivation. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(4): 439–448. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.03.013
Dillman, D. A. 2000. Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: Wiley. Endler, N. S., & Magnusson, D. 1976. Toward an interactional psychology of personality.
Psychological Bulletin, 83(5): 956–974. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.83.5.956
Forrester, R. 2000. Empowerment: Rejuvenating a potent idea. Academy of Management Executive, 14(3): 67–80. doi:10.5465/ame.2000.4468067
Gellatly, I. 1996. Conscientiousness and task performance: Test of a cognitive process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5): 474–482. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.5.474 George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. 2001. Towards a process model of individual change in
organizations. Human Relations, 54(4): 419–444. doi:10.1177/0018726701544002 Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. 1992. Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and
malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2): 183–211. doi:10.5465/amr.1992.4279530
Goldberg, L. R. 1993. The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48(1): 26–34. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.48.1.26
Goldberg, L. R. 1999. A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, F. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe, vol. 7: 7–28. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
Griffin, B., & Hesketh, B. 2003. Adaptable behaviours for successful work and career adjustment. Australian Journal of Psychology, 55(2): 65–73. doi:10.1080/00049530412331312914
Griffin, B., & Hesketh, B. 2004. Why openness to experience is not a good predictor of job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12(3): 243–251. doi:10.1111/j.0965-075x.2004.278_1.x
Griffin, B., & Hesketh, B. 2005. Are conscientious workers adaptable? Australian Journal of Management, 30(2): 245–259. doi:10.1177/031289620503000204
Gurin, P., & Brim, O. G., Jr. 1984 Change in self in adulthood: The example of sense of control. In P. B. Baltes & O. G. Brim, Jr. (Eds.), Life-span development and behaviour, vol. 8: 281–334. New York: Academic Press.
Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. 1988. A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41(1): 43–62. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00631.x
Hayes, A. F. 2015. An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50(1): 1–22. doi:10.1080/00273171.2014.962683
Hayes, A. F. 2018. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
Herold, D. M., Davis, W., Fedor, D. B., & Parsons, C. K. 2002. Dispositional influences on transfer of learning in multistage training programs. Personnel Psychology, 55(4): 851– 869. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00132.x
Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., & Caldwell, S. D. 2007. Beyond change management: A multilevel investigation of contextual and personal influences on employees’ commitment to change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4): 942–951. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.942
Hesketh, B., & Neal, A. 1999. Technology and performance. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development: 21–55. San-Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hitt, M. A., Keats, B. W., & DeMarie, S. M. 1998. Navigating in the new competitive landscape: Building strategic flexibility and competitive advantage in the 21st century. The Academy of Management Executive, 12(4): 22–42. doi:10.5465/ame.1998.1333922 Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. 1996. Personality measurement and employment
decisions: Questions and answers. American Psychologist, 51(5): 469–477. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.51.5.469
Hornung, S., & Rousseau, D. M. 2007. Active on the job – proactive in change: How autonomy at work contributes to employee support for organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(4): 401–426. doi:10.1177/0021886307307555
House, R. J., Shane, S. A., & Herold, D. M. 1996. Rumors of the death of dispositional research are vastly exaggerated. Academy of Management Review, 21(1): 203–224. doi:10.5465/amr.1996.9602161570
Howard, P. J., & Howard, J. M. 1995. The Big Five quickstart: An introduction to the five-factor model of personality for human resource professionals. Charlotte, NC: Centre for Applied Cognitive Studies.
Huang, J. L., Ryan, A. M., Zabel, K. L., & Palmer, A. 2014. Personality and adaptive performance at work: A meta-analytic investigation. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(1): 162–179. doi:10.1037/a0034285
Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. 2000. Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6): 869–879. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.869 Jimmieson, N. L., Terry, D. J., & Callan, V. J. 2004. A longitudinal study of employee adaptation
to organizational change: The role of change-related information and change-related self-efficacy. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9(1): 11–27. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.9.1.11
in social and personality psychology (2nd ed.): 473–503. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Johns, G. 2006. The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31(2): 386–408. doi:10.5465/amr.2006.20208687
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. 2001. Relationship of core self-evaluations traits – self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability – with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1): 80–92. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.80
Judge, T. A., Jackson, C. L., Shaw, J. C., Scott, B. A., & Rich, B. L. 2007. Self-efficacy and work-related performance: The integral role of individual differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1): 107–127. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.107
Jundt, D. K., Shoss, M. K., & Huang, J. L. 2015. Individual adaptive performance in organizations: A review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(1): 53–71. doi:10.1002/job.1955
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. 1999. Managerial coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1): 107–122. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.107
Kanfer, R. 1990. Motivation theory and industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: 75–170. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Kanfer, R. 1992. Work motivation: New directions in theory and research. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology: 1–53. Chichester, England: Wiley.
