European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology

ISSN: 1359-432X (Print) 1464-0643 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20

The mediating role of work climate perceptions

in the relationship between personality and
performance
Christie Fullarton , Matthew Fuller-Tyszkiewicz & Kathryn von Treuer
To cite this article: Christie Fullarton , Matthew Fuller-Tyszkiewicz & Kathryn von Treuer (2014)
The mediating role of work climate perceptions in the relationship between personality and
performance, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23:4, 525-536, DOI:
10.1080/1359432X.2013.764601
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2013.764601

Published online: 06 Feb 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 614

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pewo20
Download by: [186.90.16.207]

Date: 19 August 2016, At: 18:29

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2014

Vol. 23, No. 4, 525536, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2013.764601

The mediating role of work climate perceptions in the relationship between

personality and performance
Christie Fullarton, Matthew Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, and Kathryn von Treuer
School of Psychology, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia
Although past research has demonstrated a link between personality and job performance, potential enabling factors of
this relationship have yet to be explored comprehensively. We hypothesized that perceptions of work climate,
specically relationship dimensionscohesion, supervisor support, and job involvementmight be the mechanism
through which the relationship between personality and job performance can be explained. Two hundred and thirty
Australian employees completed an online survey measuring personality, relationship dimensions of work climate (job
involvement, coworker cohesion, and supervisor support) and job performance. Results revealed that the relationship
dimensions of work climate fully mediated the relationship between agreeableness and job performance, and
extraversion and job performance, while the relationship between neuroticism and job performance was partially
mediated by relationship dimensions of work climate. Supervisor support primarily accounted for this mediated eect
for the neuroticismjob performance relationship, whereas for extraversion only job involvement explained signicant
unique variance. Our ndings suggest that the relationship of agreeableness, extraversion, and neuroticism with job
performance is indirect, and perceptions of the work environment itself play a role in this relationship. This implies that
organizations should consider the work environment, in addition to personality during selection procedures. Future
research should examine whether dierent levels of work environment dimensions, foster greater job performance in
employees.
Keywords: Agreeableness; Extraversion; Neuroticism; Performance; Personality; Work climate.

Given the time and nancial costs incurred by

organizations during the recruitment process, there
is a need for accurate and ecient means of assessing
the suitability of applicants. Personality measures are
often used in personnel selection because they are
thought to possess desirable qualities, such as ease of
administration and most importantly, are predictive
of job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Furnham & Fudge, 2008; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Tett,
Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991; Thoresen, Bradley,
Bliese, & Thoresen, 2004).
The Big Five personality factors (extraversion,
agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness to experience, and emotional stability), which are perhaps the
most commonly assessed dimensions of personality,
have been shown to make incremental improvements
to the prediction of job performance, after controlling for the predictive eects of mental ability
(Salgado, 1998; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998; Schmidt,

Shaer, & Oh, 2008). Findings from meta-analytic

studies suggest that conscientiousness and emotional
stability, in particular, are related to job performance
(Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Mount & Barrick, 1998;
Salgado, 2003).
Accumulated research evidence also suggests that
the eect of personality on job performance is
variable (Mount & Barrick, 1998; Salgado, 2003).
In some cases (most noticeably for the personality
dimensions of agreeableness and neuroticism; Tett &
Burnett, 2003), this variation is considerable, with the
direction (i.e., negative to positive, and vice versa) as
well as magnitude of eect changing. Variability in
estimates of the personalityperformance relationship
may in part be attributed to dierences in the way job
performance is measured across studies. Variability in
the personalityperformance relationship may also be
attributed to dierences in job type or contexts across
studies (Furnham & Fudge, 2008; Mount, Barrick, &

Correspondence should be addressed to Ms Christie Fullarton, School of Psychology, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway,
Burwood, Victoria 3125, Australia. Email: christie.fullarton@deakin.edu.au
2013 Taylor & Francis

526 FULLARTON, FULLER-TYSZKIEWICZ, VON TREUER

Stewart, 1998). It is possible that the work environment in which previous samples have been drawn
from can explain these dierences in the ndings.
Specically, it is plausible to suggest that certain
types of personalities are drawn to certain types of
work environments, for example, where teamwork is
commonplace.
The inuence of personality on job performance in
team environments has provided some interesting, yet
intuitive ndings. In conducting a meta-analysis of
traits predictive of teamwork, Hough (1992) found
agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability were predictive of more eective work teams.
Furthermore, Neuman and Wright (1999) found both
conscientiousness and agreeableness predicted team
performance. Consistent with this view, Mount and
Barrick (1998) revealed that in jobs with a high
degree of team involvement, emotional stability
(neuroticism), conscientiousness, and agreeableness
were more strongly related to job performance.
Taken together, the ndings suggest that these three
traits in particular will contribute to increased job
performance outcomes in team-based environments.
With the exception of the studies listed earlier,
limited research attention has been given to identifying the aspects of the work environment that may
mediate the relationship between personality and job
performance (Tett & Burnett, 2003). Autonomy is
one of many aspects that contribute to work climate
and there are likely to be others. The possibility that
personality types may contribute to perceptions of
work climate, and therefore indirectly lead to job
performance outcomes, has been largely ignored
(Mohammed & Angell, 2003).
Various alterative explanations exist which might
explain how personality inuences perceptions of work
climate and ultimately performance. First, it is possible
that Implicit Trait Policies (ITPs) may play a role
(Motowidlo & Beier, 2010). ITPs can be described as
an individuals beliefs about the association between
expression of personality attributes and their eectiveness in a work environment (Motowidlo & Beier,
2010). Thus, individuals may perceive a certain
personality trait to be eective in their work environment and may be more likely to behave consistent with
the traits that they perceive as eective in their
workplace. Second, it may be that individuals seek
out an environment that they believe will match
their personality characteristics. For example, an
extraverted individual may seek employment in environments that are more social. This evidence suggests
that work climate plays a role in the relationship
between personality and performance.
According to Moos (1994) taxonomy, work
climate perceptions comprise of three separate dimensions: goal orientation, relationships, and system
maintenance. The goal orientation dimension

measures the extent to which employees work

independently, their eciency in meeting workrelated goals, and the level of demands placed on
them as employees. The relationship dimension
evaluates employee commitment to their jobs, how
supportive and encouraging management are towards
sta members, and the degree of cohesion among
coworkers. The system maintenance dimension reects imposition of rules and regulations in the
workplace, the extent to which innovation in practice
and outcomes is fostered, and the physical comfort
that the work environment provides.
Research shows that perceptions of work climate
vary across organizations, both within and across
industries (Konrad & Sus anj, 1996; Pratap &
Srivastava, 1985), and that these dierences in
climate are predictive of organizational outcomes,
both at the employee and organizational level (Brown
& Leigh, 1996; Rotenberry & Moberg, 2007; Stone
et al., 2007; Tham, 2007). The relationship dimension, in particular, seems aligned with outcomes at
the employee level, with direct links found between
employee-level job performance and the relationship
dimensions of cohesion, job involvement, and supervisor support (Beal, Cohen, Burke, & McLendon,
2003; Chughtai, 2008; Olson & Borman, 1989;
Shanock & Eisenberger, 2006).
There are several reasons to suspect that the relationship aspects of work climate may be particularly
relevant for the personalityjob performance relationship. First, a workplace that emphasizes cohesion,
social activities, and is supportive may be more
appealing to extraverts; thus, they may be more likely
to work in this kind of environment compared to
introverts. Second, personality factors have also been
found to correlate with work climate factors. Westerman and Simmons (2007) found moderately sized
associations between the relationship dimension of
work climate and extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability. Mohammed
and Angell (2003) experimentally evaluated the impact of personality heterogeneity of work teams on
team performance for a range of tasks, which diered
in the level of cohesion and interaction required
among team members. They found that work teams
with a lower proportion of members who are agreeable and/or emotionally stable, performed worse on
tasks requiring high levels of social interaction and
communication. In contrast, these groups did not
perform any worse than other work teams on tasks
with lower social interaction requirements.
These ndings are consistent with the notion that
personality traits may promote job performance via a
direct eect on relationship aspects of the work
climate. After a search of EBSCO psychology
databases, Business Source, Health databases, and
Scopus (search terms work environment,

PERSONALITY, PERFORMANCE AND WORK CLIMATE

personality, performance, and mediation), the

authors found only one published study examining
the role of work climate relationship dimensions in the
relationship between personality and job performance. Westerman and Simmons (2007) found that
although goal orientation was a mediator of the job
performancepersonality relationship (specically
conscientiousness), work climate relationship dimensions as a whole were not. These nonsignicant
ndings could be explained by the small sample size
(n 115) or perhaps due to the work climate relationship dimensions not being assessed individually.
Building on this existing research, the present study
seeks to substantiate and clarify the ndings in a
larger sample and will assess perceptions of climate
both as a whole (relationship dimension) and separately as subscales (job involvement, coworker cohesion, supervisor support). Hypotheses were developed
accordingly in relation to the Big Five factors, with
the exception of openness to experience, which has
shown neither strong nor consistent relations with job
performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Westerman &
Simmons, 2007) and is least predictive of job
performance, compared to the other Big Five factors
(Grin & Hesketh, 2004).
First, emotional stability, or neuroticism as it is
commonly referred to, has demonstrated consistent
relations with job performance in the existing literature
(Mount et al., 1998; Salgado, 1991). In a team
environment, being calm and pleasant when interacting with other team members is likely to increase the
success of the team, likely resulting in increased job
performance. Specically, Mount et al. (1998) in
particular found that, in a team environment, the
relationship between job performance and emotional
stability was more pronounced. In relation to the
coworker cohesion and supervisor support dimensions
of work climate, we believe that emotionally stable
individuals will have more cohesive and supportive
relationships with others in the workplace (Barrick
et al., 1998). Similarly, an emotionally stable individual
might be more involved in their job, as they are not
distracted by negative emotions or feeling anxious
which could hinder job performance. Consistent with
these views, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 1a: Perceptions of the relationship
dimensions of work climate as a whole, will mediate
the relationship between neuroticism and job
performance.
Hypothesis 1b: Perceptions of coworker cohesion,
supervisor support, and the involvement dimensions of work climate will mediate the relationship
between neuroticism and job performance.
Second, research has consistently demonstrated a
relationship between conscientiousness and job

527

performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Mount et al.,

1998; Salgado, 1997). Furthermore, research has
demonstrated that jobs involving a high degree of
interaction in teams might increase the eect of
conscientiousness on job performance (Hough, 1992;
Mount et al., 1998). Accordingly, we suggest that a
relationship-oriented environment might be an avenue that allows for increased job performance in
these conscientious individuals. In relation to the
specic dimensions of work climate, we argue that
conscientious employees might receive a greater level
of supervisor support, as they are perceived as
meticulous workers. Likewise, we would expect a
greater level of cohesion with coworkers for similar
reasons. In relation to involvement we would also
expect a conscientious employee to be involved in
their job, as characteristics of the trait suggest that
conscientious individuals pay attention to detail and
are considerate of getting work completed to a high
standard. Consistent with this view, we therefore
propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2a: Perceptions of the relationship
dimensions of work climate as a whole, will
mediate the relationship between conscientiousness and job performance.
Hypothesis 2b: Perceptions of coworker cohesion,
supervisor support, and the involvement dimensions of work climate will mediate the relationship
between conscientiousness and job performance.
Extraversion has also been shown to inuence job
performance, particularly in occupations such as
those where social interaction is the norm (Barrick
& Mount, 1991). Thus, intuitively, a work environment that is relationship oriented should lead to
increases in job performance. In a team-based
environment such as in the current study, extraverted
individuals may in fact perform better, as the
environment will facilitate the expression of this trait.
In regards to the specic dimensions of work climate,
we argue that coworker cohesion is likely to be
inuenced by extraversion, as individuals are expected to communicate and engage with others more,
thereby creating a more cohesive environment
(Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998).
Furthermore, research has also indicated that extraversion in team environments results in higher ratings
of job performance by supervisors (Barrick et al.,
1998); thus, we argue that supervisor support will be
an avenue through which the relationship between
extraversion and job performance can be explained.
We also expect the relationship dimension of
involvement to be a mediator in the extraversion
job performance relationship. Intuitively, extraversion (someone who is talkative and enjoys social
interaction) might increase the level of involvement

528 FULLARTON, FULLER-TYSZKIEWICZ, VON TREUER

and engagement individuals have with their job.
Consistent with this view, we therefore propose that:
Hypothesis 3a: Perceptions of the relationship
dimensions of work climate as a whole, will
mediate the relationship between extraversion
and performance.
Hypothesis 3b: Perceptions of coworker cohesion,
supervisor support, and the involvement dimensions of work climate will mediate the relationship
between extraversion and performance.
Finally, like extraversion, agreeableness has also
been show to predict job performance in some, but
not all studies. Although Barrick and Mount (1991)
found agreeableness did not predict job performance,
a more recent meta-analysis suggests otherwise (e.g.,
Hurtz & Donovan, 2000). In particular, agreeableness
was found to contribute to job performance when
working with others (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000). On its
own, agreeableness in an individual may not lead
directly to job performance; rather, the environment
might play a part in whether this trait will have an
inuence of job performance. For example, in a team
environment being agreeable to the ideas of others
might decrease the time taken to complete tasks. In
regards to the specic dimensions of work climate, we
argue that coworker cohesion is likely to be an avenue
in which agreeableness leads to job performance.
Coworkers who are agreeable with others are likely to
have a more cohesive relationship with others as a
result of fewer disagreements (ONeill & Kline, 2008).
Likewise, agreeableness might also relate positively to
supervisor support for similar reasons. In contrast, we
argue that involvement seems irrelevant to agreeableness and is not likely to inuence the relationship
between agreeableness and job performance. Furthermore, research suggests a nonsignicant correlation
between the two (Bozionelos, 2004; Diefendor,
Brown, Kamin, & Lord, 2002). Accordingly, we
therefore propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 4a: Perceptions of the relationship
dimensions of work climate as a whole, will
mediate the relationship between agreeableness
and performance.
Hypothesis 4b: Perceptions of coworker cohesion
and supervisor support dimensions of work
climate, will mediate the relationship between
agreeableness and performance.

METHOD
Participants
Participants consisted of 230 employees from organizations in Australia. Twenty-eight per cent of

participants were male, 71.0%, were female and

1.0% did not indicate their gender. Age of participants ranged from 18 to 60, with more than 58.0%
aged between 25 and 39 years. Just under half were
from the nance industry (48.0%); the remainder
came from health and community services (10.4%),
education (7.2%), communication services (6.8%),
retail (4.0%), recruitment/HR (3.6%), wholesale
trade and manufacturing (each 2.3%), and various
other industries (15.4%) made up of construction,
mining, transport, government, accommodation,
property and business services, and personal
services. Participants were eligible to participate in
this study if they worked in a team-based environment. Twenty per cent of participants indicated
they work in a team with three to ve other
employees, 29.0% with six to 10 employees, 24.0%
with 10 to 20 employees, and 27.0% with more than
20 employees.
The current study used an (opportunistic) convenience sample. In concordance with Reynolds,
Simintiras, and Diamantopoulos (2003), there is
nothing wrong per se in nonprobabilistic sampling,
and in many cases, like this study, probabilistic
sampling is not possible, as not all the members of
the target population are known to the researchers.
Even the most comprehensive lists of current
working populations, such as lists derived from
census data, would be incomplete as the number of
new and retiring sta members updates quicker
than census data are obtained. For this reason, it
makes it dicult to choose among existing studies
when determining whether the present study is
representative of the whole population (Reynolds
et al., 2003). Consequently, inferences made to the
whole population are not possible from the results
of this study.

Measures
Personality. Personality was measured using the
60-item version of the NEO-Five Factor Inventory
(NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992). The NEO-FFI
assesses ve broad dimensions of personality: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion,
agreeableness, and neuroticism (emotional stability).
Responses for each item were provided on a 5-point
scale, with the following response options: (1)
strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) neutral,
(4) agree, and (5) strongly agree. The NEO-FFI
is a widely used personality measure and has
demonstrated and well-established construct validity
(Archer, Brown, Boothby, Nicholas, & Lovestone,
2006; Scandell, 2000) and reliability with internal
consistency ranging from .68 to .86 (Costa, 1996;
Costa & McCrae, 1992, 1995).

PERSONALITY, PERFORMANCE AND WORK CLIMATE

Work climate. The job involvement, coworker

cohesion, and supervisor support subscales of the
Work Environment Scale (WES; Moos, 1994) were
used to evaluate the relationship dimension of work
climate. The job involvement subscale assesses an
employees degree of involvement in, and commitment to, her/his job. Coworker cohesion evaluates
the degree of friendliness and support between
coworkers. The supervisor support subscale measures
the level of support that employees receive from
management. Each subscale consists of nine items,
and respondents are asked to indicate whether they
agree (true) or disagree (false) with each statement. The internal reliability and construct validity of
the WES has been demonstrated across cultures, job
types, and samples (Carlisle, Baker, Riley, & Dewey,
1994; Fisher & Fraser, 1983; Moos, 1994). More
specically, Moos (1994) reports internal consistency
of .69 to .86 for the WES scales and a 1-month
internal consistency ranging from .69 to .83, all of
which are within an acceptable range. Other studies
using the WES also report similar reliability statistics
(Fisher & Frazer, 1983; Lochman et al., 2009;
Sardoska & Tang, 2011).
Job performance. Job performance was measured
using six items from Taormina and Gao (2009). This
review and exploratory factor analysis of existing
performance items indicated three factors explained
performance. These three factors were described as
work dedication, teamwork, and work eciency.
Two items were chosen from each scale representing
the highest eigenvalues and these items were reworded to reect job performance from an individual
rather than team perspective (please see Appendix A
for items used). Participants responded to these
statements about their perceived job performance
using a 5-point end-dened Likert scale, with
response options ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5
(very much so). Wall et al. (2004) provided
evidence for convergent and construct validity
between objective and subjective measures of
performance.

Procedure
Ethical approval for the conduct of this research
was obtained from the University Human Research
Ethics Committee. Participant recruitment involved
the use of two methods to collect an (opportunistic)
convenience sample. First, the snowball method
involved making initial contact with colleagues
within the authors past and present work networks.
Colleagues were asked to forward the invitation and
link to their friends and colleagues. A second
recruitment method involved contacting a manager
(known to the researchers) of a large nancial

529

organization to obtain consent for their employees

to be involved in the research. This permission was
granted and employees from a large division of the
organization were sent a link to the plain language
statement and survey. All participants were
prompted to read the plain language statement
before commencing the survey and were informed
that completing the online survey implied consent.
The survey took approximately 25 minutes to
complete.

Data analysis
Structural equation modelling (SEM) was conducted
in Mplus version 6.1 (Muthen & Muthen, 2010) using
robust (mean- and variance-adjusted) maximum likelihood estimation (MLMV) for continuous indicator
variables and weighted least squares estimation
(WLSMV) for categorical indicator variables. These
estimators are robust to issues of nonnormality
(Muthen & Muthen, 2010).
The use of latent variables in an SEM framework
necessitated a two-step analysis. In the rst step, the
measurement component of SEM was evaluated for
each of the scales used in the present study to ensure
that item correlations conformed to expected factor
structures. As the original 240 item form of the NEO
(from which the present short form is derived)
consists of ve factors that can be further broken
down into subfactors (or facets), it is possible to
observe correlated uniquenesses (CUs) between items
after controlling for the contribution of the factor
they load onto. These CUs reect shared variance
between items belonging to the same facets. Accordingly, we follow Marsh et al. s (2010) recommendation to also test a revised model that includes these
CUs. A chi-square dierence test was used to
evaluate whether modelling of these CUs signicantly
improves model t.
In the case of NEO-FFI subscales, a method factor
was included in modelling to control for correlations
between negatively worded items (cf. Biderman,
Nguyen, & Cunningham, 2009). Furthermore, for
all models including more than one latent variable,
items were also regressed onto a second method
factor, to control for common method variance
(Podsako, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsako, 2003).
The common method bias factor was required and
allowed for a more accurate estimate of the relationships of interest. For an excerpt of the results in
which results related to the common method bias
factor have been omitted, please see Appendix B,
Tables B1 and B2.
Adequacy of model t for these measurement
models was examined using the following criteria:
Comparative Fit Index (CFI; 4 .95 for good t, 4.90
for adequate t), Root Mean Square Error of

530 FULLARTON, FULLER-TYSZKIEWICZ, VON TREUER

Approximation (RMSEA; RMSEA  .05 for good
t, RMSEA  .10 for adequate t), Standardized
Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR; SRMR 5 .05
for good t), w2/df  3, and factor determinacy scores
.80 (Byrne, 2010; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Raykov &
Marcoulides, 2006). SRMR values are not recommended for factors with categorical indicators (Yu,
2002). Factor determinacy scores were used in
preference to Cronbachs alpha as a measure of
internal consistency of continuous items, as the
former provides more accurate estimates of reliability
(Muthen & Muthen, 2010). However, as factor
determinacy scores are unreliable for categorical
items, the Kuder-Richardson 20 (Kuder & Richardson, 1937) was used to approximate internal consistency for factors comprising categorical items.
In the second step, the structural relationships
(bivariate correlations and mediation eects) between
latent variables were examined. Bivariate correlations
between these variables were examined to ensure that
signicant relationships existed between the predictor
variables (personality dimensions), the mediating
work climate variables (job involvement, supervisor
support, and coworker cohesion) and the outcome
variable (job performance). Mediational analyses
were conducted if the following preconditions were
satised: (1) the independent variable (i.e., personality dimension) signicantly correlated with the
dependent variable (job performance), (2) the independent variable signicantly correlated with the
mediator variable (i.e., work climate variable), and
(3) the mediator signicantly correlated with the
dependent variable (Baron & Kenny, 1986). The
indirect command in Mplus was used in instances
where each of the preconditions were met, thus
allowing for evaluation of the combined and unique
explanatory value of the work climate variables for
the relationship between personality and job
performance.

RESULTS
Data were screened to evaluate the amount and
pattern of missing data, and to identify outliers
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Less than 2% missing
data were found and dealt with using expectation
maximization approach. There were no outliers or
evidence of nonnormality in any study variables.

Measurement models
As shown in Table 1, the measurement models
provided an acceptable t to the data for the work
climate and job performance constructs, as based on
CFI, SRMR, and w2/df values. RMSEA estimates
were higher than desired for job involvement and job
performance. This likely reects the small sample size

TABLE 1
Measurement models
Measure

w2

df

NEO
2940.17 1350
NEO revised
1720.15 1225
Cohesion
67.72
27
Job involvement
85.27
27
Job support
33.74
27
Job performance
29.71
9

w2/df CFI SRMR RMSEA

2.17
1.40
2.51
3.16
1.25
3.30

.65
.90
.90
.93
.99
.96

.09
.05
n/a
n/a
n/a
.03

.06
.04
.08
.09
.03
.10

SRMR is not appropriate for factors with categorical indicators.

(Chen, Curran, Bollen, Kirby, & Paxton, 2008) as

inspection of modication indices failed to reveal any
constrained paths that, if freely estimated, would
improve model t. Initial modelling of the NEO-FFI
indicated that an oblique ve factor structure
provided a poor approximation to the covariance
matrix. Subsequent testing of a revised model
that included CUs signicantly improved model t;
Dw2(df 65) 493.98, p 5 .001.

Bivariate correlations
As shown in Table 2, each of the personality
measures was signicantly related with job performance, with the exception of openness to new
experiences. The strongest relationship was found
for agreeablenessjob performance, r .35, p 5 .001.
The relationship aspects of work climate were
broadly related to personality. Coworker cohesion
was lower among individuals with heightened levels
of neuroticism, and higher among individuals who
are agreeable. Job involvement was highest for
individuals who are extraverted, agreeable, and who
exhibit lower levels of neuroticism. Supervisor support was associated with extraversion, agreeableness,
and neuroticism. Conscientiousness was unrelated to
the work climate measures. Finally, the relationships
between work climate and job performance ranged
from small, r .25, p 5 .001 for job involvementjob
performance, to moderate, r .30, p 5 .001 for coworker cohesion. Interpretations of eect sizes were
made using Cohens (1992) guideline where r .1.3
is a small eect, r .3.5 is moderate, and r greater
than .5 is large.

Structural relationships between variables

On the basis of results obtained from the bivariate
correlations, mediation models involving conscientiousness were not tested; thus, Hypotheses 2a and 2b
were not supported. The results of the remaining
three models involving extraversion, neuroticism, and
agreeableness are presented in Table 3. Collectively,
the three relationship dimensions of work climate
fully
mediated
the
relationships
between

PERSONALITY, PERFORMANCE AND WORK CLIMATE

531

TABLE 2
Correlations and factor score determinacy values for latent variables
Variable
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Cohesion
Involvement
Support
Individual performance

.95
.48***
.03
.54***
.48***
.19*
.23**
.27***
.16*

.90
.16*
.36***
.48***
.07
.27**
.24**
.25**

.90
.07
.18*
.05
.04
.03
.04

.89
.34***
.41***
.43***
.30***
.35***

.90
.02
.10
.08
.22**

.28***

.95

.33***
.46***
.30***

.36***
.25***

*p 5 .05, **p 5 .01, ***p 5 .001. Factor score determinacy values are presented on the diagonal (in bold typeface) for factors with
continuous indicators.

agreeableness and job performance, and extraversion

and job performance. Moreover, the three relationship dimensions of work climate partially mediated
the relationship between neuroticism and job performance. Hypotheses 1a, 3a, and 4a were therefore
supported.
In combination, the three work climate variables
accounted for 61.4% of the variance in the extraversionjob performance relationship, 64.3% of the
variance in the neuroticismjob performance relationship, and 30.8% of the variance in the agreeablenessjob performance relationship. At the individual
level, involvement was the only mediator to account
for a signicant amount of the variance in the
relationship between extraversion and job performance, thus providing partial support for Hypothesis
3b and not supporting Hypothesis 4b. Furthermore,
supervisor support mediated the relationship between
neuroticism and job performance, providing partial
support for Hypothesis 1b.

DISCUSSION
Although there is a wealth of accumulated empirical
evidence to suggest that personality factors (most
notably, conscientiousness and neuroticism) are
predictive of job performance (Furnham & Fudge,
2008; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Salgado, 1997, 2003;
Tett et al., 1991), it is unclear what role, if any,
perceptions of work climate may play in this
relationship. The present study used a mediationbased approach to assess whether perceptions of
work climate, specically the relationship dimensions, mediate the relationship between personality
and job performance.
Our ndings indicate that, collectively, perceptions
of the relationship dimensions of work climate fully
mediated the relationship between agreeableness and
job performance, as well as extraversion and job
performance, and partially mediated the relationship
between neuroticism and job performance. Of these

TABLE 3
Mediation effects of work climate variables on the relationship between personality and job performance
Personality dimension
Extraversion
Pathway
Total eect (c path)
Direct eect (c path)
Indirect eect
(a 6 b path)
Cohesion
Job involvement
Supervisor support
Combined eects
of work climate
variables

B
.44**
.17

.01
.27*
.01
.27*

SE

Neuroticism Agreeableness
B

SE

.14 .35** .10

.17 .82*** .22

.02
.12
.07
.14

.06
.07
.33**
.47**

.06
.16
.12
.17

SE

.16*
.11

.08
.06

.01
.05
.01
.05

.01
.05
.01
.06

c path is the total eect of the IV on DV; c path is the direct

eect of the IV on DV (controlling for indirect eects via
mediator); a 6 b is the indirect, mediational pathway; *p 5 .05,
**p 5 .01, ***p 5 .001.

climate factors, involvement made a signicant

unique contribution to explaining covariation between extraversion and job performance, and supervisor support made a unique contribution to the
neuroticismjob performance relationship.
These ndings contradict those of Westerman and
Simmons (2007), who found that preferences for
relationship climate factors did not mediate the
relationship between personality and job performance. However, we looked at the combined and
individual contributions of the various aspects of the
relationship dimensions of work climate (i.e., coworker cohesion, supervisor support, and job involvement) rather than simply using an aggregate measure
of work climate, as did Westerman and Simmons. We
also assessed perceptions of actual climate, rather
than preferences. Given that coworker cohesion and
supervisor support were nonsignicant mediators of
the personalityjob performance relationship for all

532 FULLARTON, FULLER-TYSZKIEWICZ, VON TREUER

factors except neuroticism in the present study, it is
plausible to suggest that the null nding in Westerman and Simmons study may be due to the limited
sensitivity of an aggregate approach to identify the
role of relationship factors in the link between
personality and job performance. It is also possible
that the nding is due to measurement of preferences
rather than actual work environment.
Despite theoretical speculations about the disruptive inuence of neuroticism on job performance
(e.g., Tett et al., 1991), our mediational analyses rule
out the possibility that neuroticism exerts its inuence
on job performance via disruptions to team harmony
or through diminished relationships with management. However, the nding that supervisor support
mediates this relationship oers an alternative
possibility; namely, that individuals with high levels
of neuroticism can achieve good work-related outcomes if adequately supported by management. Such
a nding suggests that organizations should carefully
consider the environment as well as personality when
recruiting and selecting employees.
Our current ndings do not support our hypothesis (2a and 2b) that perceptions of work climate
dimensions, as a whole or on their own, mediate the
conscientiousnessjob performance relationship.
However, consistent with prior research from US,
UK, and Chinese populations (Chunping, Dengfeng,
& Fan, 2009; Salgado, 1997, Thoreson et al., 2004),
the results of our correlational analysis indicate that
conscientiousness is associated with job performance.
Barrick and Mount (1991) asserted that conscientiousness is predictive of job performance because
people who possess this trait are more likely to feel a
greater sense of purpose and commitment to their
jobs, and tend to complete work to a high standard.
It is often argued that conscientious people are
harder working, more organized, and are more
committed to their jobs (Behling, 1998; Furnham &
Fudge, 2008; Witt, Burke, Barrick, & Mount, 2002).
Because of their commitment to the task, it is thought
that conscientious people may be more highly
regarded by other team members who value hardworking and organized colleagues (Prewett, Walvoord, Stilson, Rossi, & Brannick, 2009). However,
there was little evidence in the present study to
support the claim that conscientiousness inuences
job performance via commitment to work-related
tasks or through fostering of strong interpersonal
relationships in the workplace. Job involvement,
which measures an employees degree of engagement
with and commitment to her/his job, failed to
mediate the relationship between conscientiousness
and job performance. Coworker cohesion and supervisor support were also nonsignicant mediators of
the conscientiousnessjob performance relationship.
This suggests that conscientiousness does not lead to

job performance via strong ties with colleagues and

management. It is possible, therefore, that the
inuence of conscientiousness on job performance
relates more so to individual than team processes.
Consistent with this view, Witt et al. (2002) and Witt
and Ferris (2003) argue that conscientiousness may
be ineective in team environments unless it is
coupled with strong interpersonal skills.
Our hypothesis (3a) that the relationship dimensions as a whole will mediate the extraversionjob
performance relationship was supported, accounting
for more than a quarter of the variance. Similarly, for
agreeableness and job performance, the relationship
dimensions as a whole fully mediated this relationship, explaining approximately a third of the shared
variance between agreeableness and job performance,
thus supporting Hypothesis 4a. This nding supports
the notion that the relationship between extraversion
and agreeableness is an indirect one, through
relationship dimensions of the work environment.
In relation to the specic dimensions of climate,
our results indicate that the relationship dimensions
of coworker cohesion and supervisor support do not
play a role in the agreeablenessjob performance
relationship on their own. Thus, we did not nd
support for Hypothesis 4b. However, in combination,
the relationship dimensions have a role to play in the
facilitation of job performance in individuals who are
agreeable. Of note in the current study was the
signicant, positive correlation between agreeableness and job performance. This is consistent with the
ndings of Tett et al. (1991). We suggest that perhaps
the level of agreeableness might be reected in the
nature of the self-performance ratings, used in the
current study.
While extraversion demonstrated relations with job
performance when relationship dimensions as a whole
were examined as mediators, on their own, only one of
the work environment dimensions contributed signicant unique variance in the relationship, thus
partially supporting Hypothesis 3b. Our results
suggest that for those high on extraversion, perceived
supervisor support, or cohesion, job performance is
not higher; however, involvement does explain some
variation in the extraversionjob performance relationship. Taken together, these ndings imply that the
work environment variables in combination (high
involvement, supervisor support, and coworker cohesion) lead to greater levels of job performance in
individuals who are extraverted, while involvement
explains additional unique variance in the extraversionjob performance relationship.

Implications
This research has important implications for the
management of the work environment. First, in

PERSONALITY, PERFORMANCE AND WORK CLIMATE

selection procedures, perhaps less focus on personality testing is warranted, particularly when used in
the context of being an indicator of future job
performance (Westerman & Simmons, 2007). Rather,
personality testing might be better used as an
indicator of how well an employee manages the
everyday demands of the job and gets along with
others. It seems that personality may have a more
direct inuence on relationships in the work environment than on job performance. In this way, employers could look to improve their work-team eciency
and job performance by ensuring that, initially, there
is the right mix of key personality types, or by
targeting interventions to bolster the team-related
performance of team members who are more prone
to disrupting team harmony. Second, for both new
and existing employees, this research provides evidence that personality contributes to job performance
via its inuence on team dynamics. Finally, these
results indicate that the work environment in
particular can play a substantial role in the relationship between neuroticism and job performance.
In selection, this implies managers should
carefully consider not just the traits which suit the
particular type of work being undertaken, but also
the type of work environment in which the employee
will work.

Limitations and future research

The current ndings highlight the potential importance of work climate in explaining the relationship
between personality and job performance; however,
there are a number of limitations that should be
considered. First, as we utilized a cross-sectional
design, rm conclusions cannot be drawn about the
direction and causality of relationships among these
variables. Given this shortcoming, a longitudinal
investigation should be conducted to conrm these
ndings. Although we modelled work climate as a
mediator of the personalityjob performance relationship, it is equally plausible (statistically at least)
that personality instead mediates the relationship
between work climate and job performance. Christiansen and Tett (2008) have noted that the
expression of ones personality traits is context
dependent, such that behaviours within the work
setting may in some instances be inconsistent with
ones personality preferences. For instance, an
employee may feel obligated to carry a certain
persona in the workplace to t in or to function
eectively in her/his job. Future research could
measure preferred personality against work-preferred (or ideal) personality type to further disambiguate the sequence of the mediational eect found
in the present study. Moreover, it would be
important to assess the potential role of ITPs or

533

whether individuals select work environments conducive to their personality characteristics.

Second, although our sample was representative
across many demographic variables, the use of a
nonprobabilistic sample means it is possible our
statistical signicance testing is biased and therefore
our ndings may be problematic. Similarly, although
our measurement models met the minimal requirements in terms of model t, failure to meet more
stringent levels of t (e.g., nonsignicant chi-square
values, and CFI 4 .95) necessitates further research
into the modelling of these measures. Nonetheless,
the present ndings can suggest areas for further
research, and if these areas are tested and found to be
consistent with our propositions, this would serve to
increase the case for generalizability of ndings.
A third limitation is that a large proportion of
participants work in jobs that entail a large degree of
cooperation and coordination with work colleagues
and/or clients. As such, the nding that extraversion
is moderately related to job performance may be
stronger in this sample than in others, which instead
sample individuals who work largely independently
from others. Future research should conrm these
ndings in other such samples.
Finally, given that the work environment was
found to be a mediator of the personalityjob
performance relationship, we suggest that future
research should consider the possibility of the work
environment being a moderator. This will provide
employers with information surrounding when the
relationship occurs between personality and job
performance.

CONCLUSIONS
This study extends on prior research into personality
and job performance. Specically, for extraversion,
agreeableness and neuroticism, we found the relationship dimensions of work climate as a whole mediate
the relationship with performance. In addition, it was
shown that job involvement mediates the relationships between two dimensions of personality (extraversion and neuroticism) and job performance,
whereas supervisor support explained unique variance in the neuroticismjob performance relationship. Given the present ndings and limitations
inherent in the research design, there is a need to
examine longitudinally the relationship between
personality, work climate variables, and job performance to further conrm the relative importance of
the work environment in the personalityjob performance relationship. Employers should be aware that
although selection using personality assessments is
useful, it is also important to consider the role of
work environment when assessing the potential for
job performance.

534 FULLARTON, FULLER-TYSZKIEWICZ, VON TREUER

REFERENCES
Archer, N., Brown, R. G., Boothby, C. F., Nicholas, H., &
Lovestone, S. (2006). The NEO-FFi is a reliable measure of
premorbid personality in patients with probable Alzheimers
disease. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 5, 477
484.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator
variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 11731182.
Barrick, M., & Mount, M. (1991). The big ve personality
dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 44, 126. Retrieved from Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection database.
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K.
(1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team
processes and team eectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology,
83, 377391.
Beal, D., Cohen, R., Burke, M., & McLendon, C. (2003). Cohesion
and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarication of
construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 989
1004. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.989
Behling, O. (1998). Employee selection: Will intelligence and conscientiousness do the job? Academy of Management Executive,
12, 7786.
Biderman, M. D., Nguyen, N. T., & Cunningham, C.J.L. (2009,
April) Common method variance in NEO-FFI and IPIP
personality measurement. Paper session presented at the 24th
annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.
Bozionelos, N. (2004). The Big 5 of personality and work
involvement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19, 6981.
Brown, S., & Leigh, T. (1996). A new look at psychological climate
and its relationship to job involvement, eort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 358368. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.358
Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling in AMOS: Basic
concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Carlisle, C., Baker, G., Riley, M., & Dewey, M. (1994). Stress in
midwifery: A comparison of midwives and nurses using the
Work Environment Scale. International Journal of Nursing
Studies, 31, 1322.
Chen, F., Curran, P. J., Bollen, K. A., Kirby, J., & Paxton, P.
(2008). An empirical evaluation of the use of xed cut-o points
in RMSEA test statistic in structural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 36, 462494. doi:10.1177/004912
4108314720.
Christiansen, N., & Tett, R. (2008). Toward a better understanding
of the role of situations in linking personality, work behavior,
and job performance. Industrial and Organizational Psychology:
Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 312316. doi:10.1111/
j.1754-9434.2008.00054.x
Chughtai, A. (2008). Impact of job involvement on in-role job
performance and organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal
of Behavioral and Applied Management, 9, 169183.
Chunping, J., Dengfeng, W., & Fan, Z. (2009). Personality traits
and job performance in local government organizations in
China. Social Behavior and Personality: An International
Journal, 37, 451457.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155
159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
Costa, P. T. (1996). Work and personality: Use of the NEO-PIR
in industrial/organizational psychology. Applied Psychology:
An International Review, 45, 225241.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional
manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

Costa, P. T., Jr. &,McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets:

Hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO
Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 2150.
Diefendor, J. M., Brown, D. J., Kamin, A. M., & Lord, R. G.
(2002). Examining the roles of job involvement and work
centrality in predicting organizational citizenship behaviours
and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23,
93108. doi:10.1002/job.123
Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1983). Use of the WES to assess
science teachers perceptions of school environment. European
Journal of Science Education, 5, 231233.
Furnham, A., & Fudge, C. (2008). The Five Factor model of personality and sales performance. Journal of Individual Dierences, 29, 1116. doi:10.1027/1614-0001.29.1.11
Grin, B., & Hesketh, B. (2004). Why openness to experience is
not a good predictor of performance. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 12, 243251.
Hough, L. M. (1992). The Big Five personality variablesconstruct confusion: Description versus prediction. Human
Performance, 5, 139155. doi:10.1080/08959285.1992.9667929
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cuto criteria for t indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 155.
Hurtz, G., & Donovan, J. (2000). Personality and job performance:
The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869
879. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.869
Konrad, E., & Sus anj, Z. (1996). Inuences of industry on organizational culture and climate. Review of Psychology, 3, 310.
Kuder, G. F., & Richardson, M. W. (1937). The theory of the
estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika, 2, 151160.
Lochman, J. E., Powell, N. P., Boxmeyer, C., Qu, L., Wells, K. C.,
& Windle, M. (2009). Implementation of a school-based prevention program: Eects of counselor and school characteristics. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40,
476482. doi:10.1037/a0015013
Marsh, H. W., Ludtke, O., Muthen, B., Asparouhov, T., Morin, A.
J. S., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2010). A new look at the
Big Five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modelling. Psychological Assessment, 22, 471491. doi:
10.1037/a0019227.
Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2003). Personality heterogeneity
in teams: Which dierences make a dierence for team performance? Small Group Research, 34, 651677. doi:10.1177/10
46496403257228.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Beier, M. E. (2010). Determining job knowledge from implicit train policies in procedural knowledge
measured by a situational judgement test. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95, 321333.
Moos, R. (1994). Work Environment Scale manual (3rd ed.). Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Mount, M., & Barrick, M. (1998). Five reasons why the Big Five
article has been frequently cited. Personnel Psychology, 51, 849
857. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1998.tb00743.x
Mount, M., Barrick, M., & Stewart, G. (1998). Five-factor model
of personality and performance in jobs involving interpersonal
interaction. Human Performance, 11, 145165.
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2010). Mplus users guide (6th
ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.
Neuman, G. A., & Wright, J. (1999). Team eectiveness: Beyond
skills and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84,
376389. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.376
Olson, D., & Borman, W. (1989). More evidence on relationships
between the work environment and job performance. Human
Performance, 2, 113130. Retrieved from Psychology and
Behavioral Sciences Collection database.
ONeill, T. A., & Kline, T. B. (2008). Personality as a predictor of
teamwork: A business simulator study. North American Journal
of Psychology, 10, 6577.

PERSONALITY, PERFORMANCE AND WORK CLIMATE

Podsako, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsako, N. P.
(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879903.
Pratap, S., & Srivastava, S. K. (1985). A comparative study of
job satisfaction and organizational climate in private and
public-textile industries. Indian Journal of Applied Psychology,
22, 59.
Prewett, M. S., Walvoord, A. G., Stilson, F. B., Rossi, M. E., &
Brannick, M. T. (2009). The team personality-team performance relationship revisited: The impact of criterion choice,
pattern of workow, and method of aggregation. Human
Performance, 22, 273296. doi:10.1080/08959280903120253
Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2006). A rst course in
structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Reynolds, N. L., Simintiras, A. C., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2003).
Theoretical justication of sampling choices in international
marketing research: Key issues and guidelines for researchers.
Journal of International Business Studies, 34, 8089.
Rotenberry, P. F., & Moberg, P. J. (2007). Assessing the impact of
job involvement on performance. Management Research News,
30, 203215.
Salgado, J. F. (1997). The ve factor model of personality and job
performance in the European Community. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82, 3043. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.30
Salgado, J. F. (1998). Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance in army and civil occupations: A European
perspective. Human Performance, 11, 271288.
Salgado, J. F. (2003). Predicting job performance using FFM and
non-FFM personality measures. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 76, 323346.
Sardoska, E. G., & Tang, T.L.P. (2011). Work-related behavioral
intentions in Macedonia: Coping strategies, work environment,
love of money, job satisfaction, and demographic variables.
Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 373391. doi:10.1007/s10551011-1096-2
Scandell, D. J. (2000). Development and initial validation of
validity scales for the NEO-Five Factor Inventory. Personality
and Individual Dierences, 29, 11531162.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of
selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and
theoretical implications of 85 years of research ndings.
Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262274. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.
124.2.262
Schmidt, F. L., Shaer, J. A., & Oh, I. (2008). Increased accuracy
for range restriction corrections: Implications for the role of
personality and general mental ability in job and training
performance. Personnel Psychology, 61, 827868. doi:10.1111/
j.1744-6570.2008.00132.x
Shanock, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2006). When supervisors feel
supported: Relationships with subordinates perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 689695. doi:10.10
37/0021-9010.91.3.689
Stone, P., Mooney-Kane, C., Larson, E., Pastor, D., Zwanziger, J.,
& Dick, A. (2007). Nurse working conditions, organizational
climate, and intent to leave in ICUs: An instrumental variable
approach. Health Services Research, 42, 10851104. doi:10.11
11/j.1475-6773.2006.00651.x
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate
statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

535

Taormina, R. J., & Gao, J. H. (2009). Identifying acceptable

performance appraisal criteria: An international perspective.
Asia Pacic Journal of Human Resources, 47, 102125.
Tett, R., & Burnett, D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500517.
Tett, R., Jackson, D., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality
measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic
review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703742. Retrieved from
Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection database.
Tham, P. (2007). Why are they leaving? Factors aecting intention
to leave among social workers in child welfare. British Journal
of Social Work, 37, 12251246. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcl054
Thoresen, C. J., Bradley, J. C., Bliese, P. D., & Thoresen, J. D.
(2004). The Big Five personality traits and individual job performance growth trajectories in maintenance and transitional
job stages. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 835853. doi:10.
1037/0021-9010.89.5.835
Wall, T. D., Michie, J., Patterson, M., Wood, S. J., Sheehan, M.,
Clegg, C. W., & West, M. (2004). On the validity of subjective
measures of company performance. Personnel Psychology, 57,
95118.
Westerman, J., & Simmons, B. (2007). The eects of work
environment on the personality-performance relationship: An
exploratory study. Journal of Managerial Issues, 19, 288305.
Retrieved from Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
database.
Witt, L. A., Burke, L. A., Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2002).
The interactive eects of conscientiousness and agreeableness
on job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 164
169.
Witt, L. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Social skill as moderator of the
conscientiousness-performance relationship: Convergent results
across four studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 809
820.
Yu, C. (2002). Evaluating cuto criteria of model t indices for latent
variable models with binary and continuous outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, CA.
Original manuscript received August 2011
Revised manuscript received December 2012
First published online February 2013

APPENDIX A: ITEMS USED TO

MEASURE PERFORMANCE
In regards to your work:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

How dedicated are you?

How ecient are you?
How committed to teamwork are you?
Do you meet a high standard of work?
Are you motivated at work?
Are you able to adapt to new demands?

Responses were on a 5-point scale from 1 not at

all to 5 very much so.

536 FULLARTON, FULLER-TYSZKIEWICZ, VON TREUER

APPENDIX B: RESULTS FOR STUDY VARIABLES PRIOR TO ADDING THE

METHOD FACTOR
TABLE B1
Correlations and factor score determinacy values for latent variables
Variable
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Cohesion
Involvement
Support
Individual performance

.95
.48***
.03
.54***
.48***
.19*
.23**
.27***
.16*

.90
.16*
.36***
.48***
.07
.27**
.24**
.25**

.90
.07
.18*
.05
.04
.03
.04

.89
.34***
.41***
.43***
.30***
.35***

.90
.02
.10
.08
.22**

.28***

.95

.33***
.46***
.30***

.36***
.25***

*p 5 .05, **p 5 .01, ***p 5 .001. Factor score determinacy values are presented on the diagonal (in bold typeface) for factors with
continuous indicators.

TABLE B2
Mediation effects of work climate variables on the relationship between personality and job performance
Personality dimension
Extraversion
Pathway
Total eect (c path)
Direct eect (c path)
Indirect eect (a 6 b path)
Cohesion
Job involvement
Supervisor support
Combined eects of work climate variables

Neuroticism

Agreeableness

SE

SE

SE

.44**
.17

.14
.17

.35**
.82***

.10
.22

.16*
.11

.08
.06

.02
.12
.07
.14

.06
.07
.33**
.47**

.06
.16
.12
.17

.01
.27*
.01
.27*

.01
.05
.01
.05

.01
.05
.01
.06

c path is the total eect of the IV on DV; c path is the direct eect of the IV on DV (controlling for indirect eects via mediator); a 6 b is the
indirect, mediational pathway; *p 5 .05, **p 5 .01, ***p 5 .001.