大五人格与绩效：团队水平的研究

众多研究表明,大五人格能够有效预测工作情境中的个体绩效。随着团队研究的广泛开展,团队人格特征与团队绩效的关系也得到了重视。本文在简单回顾个体水平的研究结果的基础上,着重介绍团队大五人格特征与团队绩效以及关系绩效之间关系的研究;阐述从个体特质到团队特征的整合方法和依据;最后指出现有研究存在的以及未来研究需要关注的四个问题     

主动性人格与工作绩效：个体-组织匹配的调节作用

本研究的目的：考察主动性人格在中国企业内对工作绩效的预测性及个体-组织匹配在其中的调节作用。方法：研究以三家中国本土企业的253名员工为被试,使用修订过的主动性人格量表。结果：（1）除了大五人格和社会赞许性之外,主动性人格还可以解释工作绩效8．5％的方差变异;（2）整体分析时只有团队导向因素显著,单独分析时高新独资企业中注重细节因素、团队导向因素和结果导向因素有显著的调节作用;民营企业中尊重员工因素有显著的调节作用;国有企业中革新性因素和团队导向因素有显著的调节作用。结论：主动性人格可以有效地预测工作绩效,个体-组织匹配则根据不同的企业组织,不同的因素在主动性人格和工作绩效的关系中起调节作用。关于本研究的贡献与不足以及未来的研究方向都有所讨论。     

自下而上提升组织绩效的主动尝试：基于动态过程视角的工作重塑

员工自下而上主动改进和重塑工作能够有效地弥补企业自上而下工作设计激励不足的问题。因此,本研究聚焦工作重塑,探讨如何通过个人和团队的工作重塑提升组织绩效。首先,基于行动理论,深入分析“工作重塑行为本身”,从而构建工作重塑的动态过程模型,并细致地阐述了工作重塑的发展过程以及工作重塑在个体和团队两个层次相互影响的过程。其次,从个体层探究了员工工作重塑影响个体绩效的两个机制。最后,应用团队过程视角,阐释了团队工作重塑影响团队绩效的作用机制。研究提炼出的工作重塑动态过程模型能为组织将工作重塑扩散并固化为可推广的工作模式提供理论指引和实践参考。     

“大五”人格模型及其在工业与组织心理学中的应用

“大五”是涵盖人格的5个因素的简称,它包括：神经质、外向性、开放性、宜人性和责任感。在介绍了该模型的基础上,文章重点介绍了它在工业与组织心理学中的应用,即“大五”可以有效的预测工作绩效、工作动机、领导行为、创造性行为和工作满意感等。     

领导者情感的作用机制：一个跨层的整合观点

领导者情感能够影响下属个体绩效和团队整体绩效, 但作用机制尚不清晰。基于情感事件理论和情绪传染理论, 在个体层面上, 领导者情感通过情绪传染和领导者行为两条路径影响下属情感, 进而影响下属绩效和工作态度。其次在团队层面上, 个体情感通过情绪传染和交叉影响形成团队情感基调, 通过影响团队过程, 进而影响团队绩效。最后, 文章提出领导者情感的跨层整合模型, 并对未来研究方向进行讨论。     

冲突对绩效的影响：个体、团队宜人性的调节作用

以往个体和团队冲突研究主要考察了个人特征或团队特征对冲突结果的影响, 而尚未充分关注冲突管理过程中个体特征与团队特征间的交互效应。基于个人-团队匹配理论, 本研究探讨了个体层面宜人性与团队层面宜人性异质性对团队中个体冲突(关系冲突、任务冲突)和工作绩效间关系的影响。基于来自64个银行服务团队(包含339名下属和64名主管)的多来源、多时点纵向数据, 本研究所得结果显示：(1)关系冲突显著负向影响工作绩效, 任务冲突对工作绩效的影响不显著。(2)个体宜人性能够显著减弱关系冲突对工作绩效的负面影响, 而增强任务冲突对工作绩效的正向影响。(3)关系/任务冲突、个体宜人性和团队宜人性异质性间存在着三重交互效应, 共同影响工作绩效。具体而言, 当团队宜人性异质性水平较低时, 个体宜人性对关系/任务冲突与工作绩效间关系的调节作用更加显著。     

个体情绪智力与工作场所绩效关系的元分析

运用元分析方法对个体情绪智力与工作场所绩效的关系问题进行了探讨。来源于75项研究的87个独立样本满足了元分析的标准(N=12882)。元分析结果发现, 整体上个体情绪智力与工作场所绩效有中等程度的相关(r=0.28); 情绪智力测量工具、绩效衡量标准、实证数据特点和文化差异等会调节影响它们之间的关系; 在多种调节效应中, 中国文化背景下它们之间的关系最强(r=0.37)。结果表明, 情绪智力能有效地预测工作绩效; 情绪智力与工作绩效的关系强度受不同因素影响会发生小幅变化; 文化差异对它们之间关系的影响最为明显。此结果提供了情绪智力预测工作绩效的精确估计, 并能为未来情绪智力研究指引方向。     

领导授权赋能与领导有效性的关系：基于元分析的检验

基于183项实证研究, 采用元分析法综合考察了领导授权赋能与领导有效性的关系, 包括个体工作态度与绩效(145个样本, 50509名员工)、团队绩效(47个样本, 4856个团队)和组织绩效(9个样本, 1090家企业)。结果表明：领导授权赋能与工作满意度、组织承诺和主观幸福感显著正相关, 与离职倾向、倦怠&压力显著负相关, 与个体(团队)绩效及其各维度显著正相关, 与反生产行为显著负相关, 但与组织绩效的正向关系不显著。其中, 主观幸福感、团队绩效、团队任务绩效的样本文献可能存在出版偏倚, 其元分析结果很可能被高估。在东西方差异上, 领导授权赋能与个体(团队)绩效、个体(团队)任务绩效的相关性均属东亚样本更强、欧美样本更弱, 而与个体(团队)创新绩效、个体(团队)关系绩效之间无显著差异。然而, 团队创新绩效的欧美样本和团队关系绩效的东亚样本仅1份, 故其东西方比较结果可能存在不稳定及不可靠性。此外, 领导授权赋能的量表、数据类型显著调节了领导授权赋能与个体绩效的关系, 行业类型的调节效应不显著。研究结果为领导授权赋能与领导有效性的研究给出了新的阶段性定论。     

共享心智模型影响团队绩效的权变模型

共享心智模型指团队成员关于团队关键要素的共同的知识结构, 诸多研究表明其能有效提高团队运作效能。本研究从权变的角度入手, 以负责通讯网络监控与维护的106个高技术团队为分析对象, 探讨团队的共享心智模型与团队绩效的关系, 并揭示团队互依性作为权变因素对共享心智模型与团队绩效关系的调节效应。层次回归分析结果表明, 共享心智模型能显著预测团队绩效, 而团队互依性则负向调节两者之间的关系, 即在互依性程度较低的团队里, 共享心智模型才显著提高团队绩效。作者从共享心智模型的测量和权变因素的作用两个角度展开讨论, 并基于此提出了后续的研究方向。     

虚拟团队共享式领导的双刃剑效应研究：基于调适性结构理论的视角

虚拟团队因新兴技术驱动而成为组织管理的潮流, 尤其全球疫情的爆发使得远程办公备受关注。共享式领导是与虚拟团队高度匹配的领导模式, 但现今学界对虚拟团队共享式领导作用机制的研究比较匮乏, 且集中在正面效应和团队层次, 忽略了共享式领导可能存在的负面效应及对个体层次的影响。研究基于调适性结构理论, 提出虚拟团队共享式领导有助于团队及个体内部动机和效能感的提升, 同时也会加剧团队内社会惰化现象和关系冲突水平, 引发员工的工作负荷和工作焦虑感, 进而对团队绩效和个体绩效产生双刃剑效应, 同时, 团队虚拟性、任务复杂性和任务重要性在其中起到调节作用。研究模型系统打开了虚拟团队共享式领导的影响机制黑箱, 为组织如何在虚拟情境下领导团队、提升绩效提供借鉴。     

Expanding and Reconceptualizing Aberrant Personality at Work: Validity of Five‐Factor Model Aberrant Personality Tendencies to Predict Career Outcomes

This study proposes and tests an alternative methodology to conceptualize and assess aberrant personality tendencies at work beyond the dark triad. A sample of college alumni (N= 247) were administered the NEO PI‐R prior to entering the labor market and 15 years later when their professional careers had unfolded. Drawing on the dimensional perspective on personality functioning, 6 five‐factor model (FFM) aberrant compounds were computed as indicators of aberrant personality tendencies. As expected, FFM aberrant personality tendencies were highly stable across time, with test–retest correlations ranging from .61 (Narcissistic) to .73 (avoidant). With regard to predictive validity, borderline, schizotypal, and avoidant tendencies were negatively associated with extrinsic and intrinsic career outcomes. The obsessive‐compulsive tendency was largely unrelated to career outcomes, whereas individuals with antisocial and narcissistic characteristics tended toward higher hierarchical and financial attainment. In addition, relative importance analyses indicated that (a) FFM aberrant personality tendencies showed incremental validity in the prediction of career outcomes beyond FFM general traits, and that (b) both FFM general and FFM aberrant personality tendencies are important predictors when considered jointly. It is concluded that FFM aberrant personality tendencies suggest interesting avenues for personnel psychologists to form new linear combinations of FFM facets, complementing FFM general domains.     

The Eysenckian personality factors and their correlations with academic performance

Background. The relationship between personality and academic performance has long been explored, and a recent meta‐analysis established that measures of the five‐factor model (FFM) dimension of Conscientiousness have similar validity to intelligence measures. Although currently dominant, the FFM is only one of the currently accepted models of personality, and has limited theoretical support. In contrast, the Eysenckian personality model was developed to assess a specific theoretical model and is still commonly used in educational settings and research. Aims. This meta‐analysis assessed the validity of the Eysenckian personality measures for predicting academic performance. Sample. Statistics were obtained for correlations with Psychoticism, Extraversion, and Neuroticism (20–23 samples; N from 8,013 to 9,191), with smaller aggregates for the Lie scale (7 samples; N= 3,910). Methods. The Hunter–Schmidt random effects method was used to estimate population correlations between the Eysenckian personality measures and academic performance. Moderating effects were tested using weighted least squares regression. Results. Significant but modest validities were reported for each scale. Neuroticism and Extraversion had relationships with academic performance that were consistent with previous findings, while Psychoticism appears to be linked to academic performance because of its association with FFM Conscientiousness. Age and educational level moderated correlations with Neuroticism and Extraversion, and gender had no moderating effect. Correlations varied significantly based on the measurement instrument used. Conclusions. The Eysenckian scales do not add to the prediction of academic performance beyond that provided by FFM scales. Several measurement problems afflict the Eysenckian scales, including low to poor internal reliability and complex factor structures. In particular, the measurement and validity problems of Psychoticism mean its continued use in academic settings is unjustified.     

The Big-5 ± 2? The impact of cognitive complexity on the factor structure of the five-factor model

Despite the popularity and prevalence of the five-factor model (FFM) of personality, numerous questions regarding its psychometric properties have yet to be investigated. One issue of particular concern is the underlying premise that these five personality factors are universally shared by all individuals. The present study examined the impact of cognitive complexity on the FFM by directly assessing whether individuals with higher or lower levels of cognitive complexity have personalities comprised of a greater or lesser number of factors, respectively, than the five widely accepted factors outlined by the FFM. Results indicated that individuals with lower levels of cognitive complexity have personalities best described by a three-factor model, whereas individuals with higher levels of cognitive complexity have personalities best described by a seven-factor model. In light of these findings, the appropriateness of universally applying the FFM to individuals of differing levels of cognitive complexity is discussed.     

The Big-5 ± 2? The impact of cognitive complexity on the factor structure of the five-factor model

Despite the popularity and prevalence of the five-factor model (FFM) of personality, numerous questions regarding its psychometric properties have yet to be investigated. One issue of particular concern is the underlying premise that these five personality factors are universally shared by all individuals. The present study examined the impact of cognitive complexity on the FFM by directly assessing whether individuals with higher or lower levels of cognitive complexity have personalities comprised of a greater or lesser number of factors, respectively, than the five widely accepted factors outlined by the FFM. Results indicated that individuals with lower levels of cognitive complexity have personalities best described by a three-factor model, whereas individuals with higher levels of cognitive complexity have personalities best described by a seven-factor model. In light of these findings, the appropriateness of universally applying the FFM to individuals of differing levels of cognitive complexity is discussed.     

Honesty-humility, the big five, and the five-factor model

This study investigated the relations of the proposed sixth factor of personality, Honesty-Humility, with the dimensions of the classic English lexical Big Five and the closely related Five-Factor Model (FFM). Results showed that although Honesty-Humility was largely unrelated to markers of the Big Five factors, it was substantially correlated with the FFM Agreeableness domain. This relation was largely due to the Straightforwardness and Modesty facets of FFM Agreeableness, which were only weakly correlated with the Big Five version of Agreeableness. A realignment of FFM facets to produce separate Honesty-Humility and Agreeableness factors provided better prediction of personality variables that involve deceit without hostility, such as Social Adroitness and Self-Monitoring. Results indicate the importance of assessing Honesty-Humility as a separate factor.     

A comparative study of the dimensions and facets of the five-factor model in the diagnosis of cases of personality disorder

Two national samples of psychologists (n = 92, n = 89) rated personality disorder cases using either the five factors (domains) or the 30 facets of the five-factor model (FFM) to examine reliability and clinical utility of the model when used as a diagnostic tool. The cases were prototypic and nonprototypic cases representing the three clusters of personality disorders in the DSM-IV. Although confidence was higher using the factors rather than the facets to rate the cases, interrater reliability was similar and the facets were rated more useful for professional communication, case conceptualization, and treatment. Mean ratings for the prototypic cases supported the theorized relationships between those personality disorders and the FFM. Principal components factor analysis of the facet ratings largely replicated the structure of the FFM with only a few facets failing to load with their superordinate dimension in the model. Implications for use of the FFM with personality disorder are discussed.     

Validity of observer ratings of the five-factor model of personality traits: a meta-analysis

Conclusions reached in previous research about the magnitude and nature of personality-performance linkages have been based almost exclusively on self-report measures of personality. The purpose of this study is to address this void in the literature by conducting a meta-analysis of the relationship between observer ratings of the five-factor model (FFM) personality traits and overall job performance. Our results show that the operational validities of FFM traits based on observer ratings are higher than those based on self-report ratings. In addition, the results show that when based on observer ratings, all FFM traits are significant predictors of overall performance. Further, observer ratings of FFM traits show meaningful incremental validity over self-reports of corresponding FFM traits in predicting overall performance, but the reverse is not true. We conclude that the validity of FFM traits in predicting overall performance is higher than previously believed, and our results underscore the importance of disentangling the validity of personality traits from the method of measurement of the traits.     

The five factor model of personality: Openness a distinct but related construct

It has been argued that the Openness (O) dimension from the five factor model (FFM) of personality may in fact be an associate of the ability domain more than the personality domain. This paper explores this hypothesis using a sample of 101 managers. Participants completed the NEO-FFI and a measure of ability assessing the construct as typical performance. This measure was an occupational specific measure of typical intellectual engagement (TIE), termed the “problem solving through challenge” PSC scale. A combination of LISREL CFA and hierarchical multiple linear regression (HMLR) indicated that in fact O was a distinct but related construct to the other four dimensions of the FFM (N, E, A and C), but that O was more strongly correlated with PSC than the other dimensions. These results are taken to indicate that O, while associated with personality, assesses something to do with problem solving as a personality trait. Further the results suggest that E linked O to the other personality scales.     

Person‐factors in the California Adult Q‐Set: closing the door on personality trait types?

To investigate recent hypotheses of replicable personality types, we examined data from 1540 self‐sorts on the California Adult Q‐Set (CAQ). Conventional factor analysis of the items showed the expected Five‐Factor Model (FFM). Inverse factor analysis across random subsamples showed that none of the previously reported person‐factors were replicated. Only two factors were replicable, and, most importantly, these factors were contaminated by mean level differences in item endorsement. Results were not due to sample size or age heterogeneity. Subsequent inverse factor analysis of standardized items revealed at least three replicable factors; when five person‐factors were extracted, they could be aligned precisely with the dimensions of the FFM. The major factors of person similarity can be accounted for entirely in terms of the FFM, consistent with the hypothesis that there are no replicable personality types in the CAQ. Published in 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.