Ying 2014

Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research http://jht.sagepub.com/
Personality Effects on the Social Network Structure of Boundary-Spanning

Personnel in the Tourism Industry
Tianyu Ying and William C. Norman
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research published online 9 June 2014
DOI: 10.1177/1096348014538047
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jht.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/06/09/1096348014538047
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
International Council on Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Education
Additional services and information for Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jht.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jht.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://jht.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/06/09/1096348014538047.refs.html
>> OnlineFirst Version

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Uni ofof Record
Southern Queensland-onJun
October 9, 2014
17, 2014
What is This?
538047
research-article2014
JHTXXX10.1177/1096348014538047
Personality Effects on
The Social Network Structure
of Boundary-Spanning
Personnel in The Tourism
Industry
Tianyu Ying
University of Otago
William C. Norman
Clemson University
Tourism businesses participate in network relationships with others to obtain resources

that are unavailable within. Due to the socially embedded nature of interorganizational
relationships, the social networks of the boundary-spanning personnel in tourism
businesses are believed to have a profound influence on the formation and structure
of their networks at the organizational level. Understanding the boundary-spanning
personnels social network, particularly in a professional context, may facilitate
tourism businesses in their human resources strategies and further benefit their
business network development and maintenance. Using the Big-Five personality
construct, this study investigated the personality effects on the tourism boundary-
spanning personnels social network diversity and tie strength in a professional
setting. The study revealed the connections between different aspects of individuals
social networks and their personality traits. The findings indicated that, with different
business networking needs or being at different network development stages, tourism
businesses may need to look for employees with different personalities to undertake the
corresponding networking tasks.
Keywords: tourism business network; social network; boundary-spanning

personnel; personality; network heterogeneity; network tie strength
Tourism has long been viewed as a system where interdependence is essential

(Bjrk & Virtanen, 2005). The network of relationships between and among
tourism product organizations within a destination allows the tourism industry
to deliver its product (Tinsley & Lynch, 2001) and to compensate for
Authors Note: The authors would like to thank the associate editor and anonymous reviewers
for their constructive suggestions and insightful comments that have helped enrich the content and
improve the presentation quality of this article.
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 201X, Vol. XX, No. X, Month 2014, 124
DOI: 10.1177/1096348014538047
2014 International Council on Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Education
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on October 17, 2014
1
2 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH
the fragmented nature of tourism (Scott, Baggio, & Cooper, 2008). Tourism
businesses participate in network relationships with others in order to have
access to the resources that are unavailable within. Networking among tourism
businesses can take different forms, such as destination-marketing strategies
(Morrison, 1998), tourism business collaboration (Tinsley & Lynch, 2001), and
tourism information and resource exchange (Augustyn & Knowles, 2000).
Interorganizational network relationship needs to be carried out by individual
employees. The key networking employees in organizations are called the
boundary-spanning personnel, as they have substantial external communica-
tions with others outside their organization and are frequently consulted on
work-related matters within the organization (Tushman & Thomas, 1981). Most
boundary-spanning personnel research in the tourism and hospitality fields
focuses on the frontline employees (e.g., front desk agents, food servers, and
concierges) and their direct encounter with customers in the service settings
(e.g., Karatepe, 2012; Sltten & Mehmetoglu, 2011; Solnet, 2007). However,
little attention has been paid to a different type of boundary-spanning personnel
in organizations, whose role is to network with other organizations for business
collaboration and partnership. Typical examples in the tourism industry include
the general managers as well as the managers (and staff) of the marketing, sales,
and public relations departments of a tourism business. In businesses of small or
micro size, the boundary-spanning personnel are often the business owners.
Acting as the critical links between their organization and external information
sources, these boundary-spanning personnel have profound influences on the
formation and structure of interorganizational networks through their motiva-
tion, experience, personality, and other personal characteristics (Dickson &
Weaver, 1997; Gulati & Westphal, 1998).
The concept of social embeddedness has provided a theoretical foundation
for understanding the role of boundary-spanning personnel in interorganiza-
tional relations. As Granovetter (1985) advocates, instead of relying on market
contracts and hierarchical controls, economic action is embedded in structures
of social relations. According to this embeddedness argument, work-related
transactions tend to overlap with patterns of social relations (Granovetter, 1985).
People may prefer to do business with contractors with whom they have ties of
friendship or kinship rather than find exchange partners in the open market
(Uzzi, 1996). This is particularly true in the tourism industry that is mainly com-
posed of independent and small enterprises with limited resources. For most
small-sized enterprises, interorganizational networks are more likely to be con-
structed around social networks developed through associations formed by fam-
ily, friends, and acquaintances (Perry, 1999). This social embeddedness of
interorganizational relations suggests the importance of understanding the
boundary-spanning personnels social network characteristics for effective tour-
ism business networking and collaboration.
Prior studies have mainly examined the effects of proximity (i.e., the geo-
graphical or spatial distance between the actors) and similarity (e.g., the

Ying, Norman / PERSONALITY EFFECTS ON THE SOCIAL NETWORK3
similarities in gender, race, values, and education level) on the boundary-spanning

personnels social network structure that contributes to the networking behaviors at
the organizational level. Except for a few initial attempts (e.g., Casciaro, 1998;
Vodosek, 2003), very limited empirical effort has been made to incorporate psycho-
logical perspectives in social network inquiries and to understand how different
personality traits could influence individuals social network formation and
structure.
A thorough understanding of the relationships between the tourism business
boundary-spanning personnels personality traits and their social network char-
acteristics in a professional context could facilitate tourism businesses in their
human resources strategy and training of key networking staff. The latter could
further benefit tourism businesses network development and maintenance.
Based on a sample of 138 tourism business boundary-spanning personnel asso-
ciated with a local destination marketing organization, this study aimed to
empirically examine the personality effects on the boundary-spanning person-
nels social network characteristics (i.e., social network heterogeneity and tie
strength) in a professional environment. To measure personality traits, the Big-
Five model (John, 1990; Rammstedt & John, 2007) was adopted in this study for
its repeatedly verified measurement validity and reliability, and its wide usage in
prior tourism and hospitality research. A series of multiple regression analysis
were performed to examine the possible effects of the five personality traits on
individuals social network heterogeneity and network tie strength. It was
expected that the findings could contribute to the current academic endeavors in
incorporating personality aspects into social network research for tourism and
hospitality.
Conceptualizing The Boundary-Spanning Personnels

Social Network Structure
The concept of social capital has long been used to conceptualize individuals
social network resources. According to Lin (2001a, p. 12), social capital can be
defined as resources embedded in a social structure which are accessed and/or
mobilized in purposive actions. From a social capital perspective, it is the struc-
ture of the network and actors positions within this network, rather than the
actors themselves, that should be the focus of the network examination (Lin,
2001b). A common strategy for social network research is to identify all the
members of a particular group (e.g., a firm, neighborhood) and then configure
the relationships of interest among them for network construction and analysis
(Scott, 2000). This full network approach is not applicable in this study, because
the tourism industry is a dynamic and open system, and it is practically infeasi-
ble to scrutinize the network relationships among all the tourism boundary-span-
ning personnel in a destination. Therefore, this study used network heterogeneity
and network tie strength to measure the nonrelational aspects of the tourism
boundary-spanning personnels network structure.

Differentiating along a nominal dimension (Blau, 1977), network heteroge-

neity (or network compositional diversity) is a critical concept for understanding
social capital. Network heterogeneity measures the extent to which an individual
has connections to different social groups (Higgins & Kram, 2001). It is a con-
figuration that provides access to diverse information and capabilities and thus
reduces redundancy. Social network heterogeneity has been widely examined
for its effects on other social or behavioral outcomes (e.g., job-search behavior,
job performance). Research shows that individuals with a greater variety of
social relationships have access to more novel information and resources
(Podolny & Baron, 1997). By interacting with people from other social groups,
they obtain information on opportunities that would otherwise be hardly avail-
able. Bourdieu (1986) argues that as the number of connections increases out-
side of ones immediate group, bridging social capital is generated. At the
organizational level, studies also confirm the importance of network heteroge-
neity and find that network heterogeneity is critical to different aspects of orga-
nizational performance, such as organizational learning and innovation (e.g.,
Powell, Koput, & Smith-Doerr, 1996) and market share (e.g., Rowley, Baum,
Shipilov, Greve, & Rao, 2004). However, limited effort has been made so far to
examine what individual-level antecedents contribute to the formation of a
diverse social network.
Network tie strength is another social network concept that has attracted sig-
nificant research attention in recent years. Indicating the nature of contacts
among the actors in a network, network tie strength measures the intensity or
depth of a relationship. The strength of network ties is determined by a combi-
nation of the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy (mutual con-
fiding) and the reciprocal services which characterize the tie (Granovetter,
1973, p. 1361). Currall and Judge (1995) suggest that the strength of ties between
organizations boundary-spanning personnel tends to increase with the length of
their relationship. It is believed that strong ties between close friends within a
social network promote the flow of information. This dimension is theoretically
grounded in the social capital concept that networks of strong, personal relation-
ships developed over time can provide the basis for trust, cooperation, and col-
lective action (Coleman, 1988). Jehn and Shah (1997) suggest that friendship
groups share more information than acquaintance groups. Furthermore, mem-
bers of a close network tend to modify their attitudes, sentiments, or opinions to
correspond to others around them (Frank & Fahrbach, 1999).
Alternative to strong ties, Granovetter (1973) noted that weak or indirect ties
of acquaintanceship offer access to new information and connect people to other
resources that would be otherwise unavailable within their close social net-
works. This argument also has its empirical support. Perry-Smith and Shalley
(2003) demonstrate that weak ties are generally beneficial for creativity because
of the fact that exposure to different approaches and perspectives should enhance
important creativity-relevant skills. Burt (2000) develops the concept of struc-
ture holes for the weak connections between groups in the social structure of

market and defines it as opportunities for gaining new advantage, accessing non-
redundant information, and diffusing knowledge.
The strong and weak ties concern different aspects of individuals social net-
work function and have complementary effects on information flow and avail-
ability. It could be argued that people with both strong and weak ties in a given
social context might gain more benefits and/or power from networking com-
pared with those who have only strong or weak ties in the same environment.
This complementary nature of strong and weak ties in networking was recog-
nized in this study by separating the boundary-spanning personnel who possess
both strong and weak ties in a given sector from the rest and regarding them as
having a higher level of network tie strength.
The Effects of Personality on Social Network Structure
Traditionally, network theorists have devoted much of their attention to the

consequences of networks and how individuals behaviors depend on their struc-
tural locations in the network (Wehrli, 2008). The interaction between personal-
ity and social network position has been recognized relatively belated. Studies
show that some personality traits, such as self-monitoring (Mehra, Kilduff, &
Brass, 2001), entrepreneurial personality (Burt, Jannotta, & Mahoney, 1998),
and extraversion (Casciaro, 1998), can affect individuals socializing behaviors
and social network patterns. As Kilduff and Tsai (2003, p. 84) suggest, [T]he
personality approach may motivate research that helps explain not only why
individuals develop distinctive patterns of network ties, but also how these pat-
terns differentially affect outcomes such as work performance, promotions and
business success.
The majority of existing research emphasizes the specific and narrow con-
ceptions of personality. Very few have examined the relationship between social
network and personality from a generic perspective. Among the few initial
attempts, Vodosek (2003) explores how personality is related to network forma-
tion by utilizing a comprehensive personality modelthe Big Five personality
markers. Psychologists have proposed this five-factor structure to capture much
of the variance in peoples personality traits (John, 1990). The five dimensions
embraced in this Big-Five model include Extraversion, Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness (Goldberg, 1981). Having
shown theoretically meaningful associations with important life outcomes, such
as work performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991), well-being (Costa & McCrae,
1980), and aspects of psychopathology (Widiger & Trull, 1992), this five-factor
model has gained wide acceptance as a general taxonomy of personality traits in
the past two decades (Wehrli, 2008).
The Big-Five model also has been the most popular taxonomy of personality
traits in tourism and hospitality research (Leung & Law, 2010). It has been used
to explore the relationships between personality traits and different aspects of
service outcomes in the tourism and hospitality industry. Research shows that

Table 1
Hypotheses for Personality Effects on Network Heterogeneity and Tie Strength
Social Network Heterogeneity Social Network Tie Strength
Extraversion + +
Agreeableness + +
Conscientiousness + +
Neuroticism
Openness + +
conscientiousness is a key personality trait related to the work performance of

frontline staff (Tracey, Sturman, & Tews, 2007). Neuroticism and conscientious-
ness are the two personality traits affecting restaurant staffs job burnout and job
engagement (Kim, Shin, & Swanger, 2009), and agreeableness plays a signifi-
cant role in explaining hotel employees job burnout (Kim, Shin, & Umbreit,
2007). Agreeableness, conscientiousness, and extroversion were found to be
positive predictors for hiring new service staff in the hospitality industry (Costen
& Barrash, 2006; Teng, Huang, & Tsai, 2007). ONeill and Xiao (2010) found
that personality traits, particularly extroversion and neuroticism, play a part in
the emotional exhaustion of hotel managers.
Based on the Big-Five personality construct, this study proposed to investi-
gate the respective effects of the five personality traits on the social network
heterogeneity and tie strength of tourism boundary-spanning personnel in a
business environment (see Table 1 for a summary of the proposed hypotheses).
Extraversion summarizes traits related to activity and energy, dominance,
sociability, expressiveness, and positive emotions (Benet-Martnez & John,
1998, p. 730). Individuals with higher levels of extraversion are expected to be
more outgoing and more intended to engage in social interaction. Prior studies
have shown that extraverted individuals tend to have larger networks and higher
contact frequencies (Anderson, John, Keltner, & Kring, 2001; Russel, Booth,
Reed, & Laughlin, 1997). So in this study, extraversion was expected to exhibit
positive effects on both the network heterogeneity and tie strength.
Agreeableness indicates a prosocial orientation toward others, as opposed to
an antagonist orientation. Agreeable people tend to be kind, flexible, trusting,
and forgiving. They are more willing to cooperate and avoid conflict. Associated
with positive relations with others, agreeableness has been proven to contribute
to peer acceptance and friendship in social groups (Jensen-Campbell et al.,
2002) and to be correlated with personal network structure (McCarty & Green,
2005). Therefore, it was expected that agreeableness would have positive effects
on network heterogeneity and tie strength.
Conscientiousness refers to the extent that a person is careful, responsible,
organized, and has a strong will to achieve. Prior research has noted its strong
association with work-related matters. Since the social network investigated in
this study was work-oriented, it was possible that conscientiousness would play
a significant part in the boundary-spanning personnels networking strategies for

business purposes. In order to develop and maintain effective business relation-
ships with others, the boundary-spanning personnel with higher levels of consci-
entiousness might tend to establish a more diverse social network with stronger
relationships.
Neuroticism contrasts emotional stability with a broad range of negative
affects, including anxiety, sadness, irritability, and nervous tension. Few studies
have reported the relationship between neuroticism and social network. But it is
reasonable to assume that neurotic persons tend to be fearful of rejection, less
attractive to others, and relatively incompetent in maintaining social relation-
ships. Therefore, neuroticism was expected to have negative influences on social
network heterogeneity and tie strength.
Openness describes the breadth, depth, and complexity of an individuals
mental and experiential life. People with high levels of openness would usually
be more curious and open-minded, compared with those with low levels of
openness who tend to be more practical, traditional, and down-to-earth. Although
it remained unclear whether openness would affect the strength of social rela-
tions, it was expected that individuals with high levels of openness might be
more open to different networking opportunities and more likely to make new
social contacts, and therefore have a more diverse social network.
Method
Study Context and Sample
Receiving over four million visitors every year (City of Charleston, 2009),
Charleston, South Carolina, is among the top tourist destinations in the United
States and was selected as the case area of this study. Its long history in tourism
development and relatively mature tourism industry had made Charleston an
ideal empirical context for this study. The Charleston Area Convention and
Visitor Bureau (CACVB) is the major destination marketing organization for the
greater Charleston area. It runs a private sector marketing fund called the
CACVB Travel Council. This travel council is a membership-based network
consisting of businesses and organizations involved in the local tourism indus-
try. In addition to its mission in collaborative destination promotion, the CACVB
Travel Council also provides a variety of networking services (e.g., monthly
travel council meeting) to foster collaboration and partnership among its mem-
bers. At the time of this study, the CACVB Travel Council had 337 active mem-
ber businesses from a variety of tourism-related sectors. The networking roles of
these members were assumed by their business representatives (i.e., the bound-
ary-spanning personnel), who were also the research subjects of this study.
Data Collection
The difficulty has long been recognized in determining whether a socioeco-

nomic activity/entity should be considered as tourism related. Adapted from the
Table 2
Sector Classification of the Tourism Industry
Sector Category Subgroups
1.Accommodation Hotel, Motel, B&Bs, Inns, Resort, Campground,

Estate rentals, and other accommodation
service
2.Food and Beverage Restaurants, Bars and Pubs, Catering service,
and other Food and Beverage service
3.Cultural Attractions Museums, Galleries, Plantations, Performing arts,
Historical sites, Events, Festivals, etc.
4.Natural Attractions National/State/Local Parks, Gardens, Coasts and
Beaches, etc.
5.Recreation Operators Spectator sports, Golf, Water sports, Sightseeing,
Biking, etc.
6.Entertainment Services Amusement and theme parks, Theater, Marina,
Night Clubs, Shopping facilities, etc.
7.Tourism Intermediaries Tour operator, Travel agencies, Tour guide
service, Convention and meeting planner,
Wedding and event planner, Convention
centers, Real estate, etc.
8.Transportation Air lines, Car rentals, Motor coaches, Railway,
Cruise lines, Maintenance and repair service,
other transportation organizations
9.Tourism Media Flat media, Multimedia, Other media
10.Tourism Industry Organizations Convention and Visitor Bureau, Hotel & Motel
or Associations association, Restaurant association, etc.
11.Local Business Organizations Chamber of Commerce, Market Area Association,
or Associations etc.
12.Tourism-related Government City Hall, Port authority, National/State park
Bodies services, or other government agencies, etc.
13.Tourism Academic Institutions University, College, Tourism research center
12.Other Tourism Services
Source: Adapted from OECD (2000); UNWTO (2008).
inventories used by major international organizations (e.g., OECD, 2000;

UNWTO, 2008) for tourism statistic purposes, a 14-sector inventory was first
developed as a working framework for this study to (a) classify the research
participants based on their professional affiliations and (b) construct the social
network structure questionnaire (see Table 2).
The data were collected via a self-report online survey. The study was first
advertised at a CACVB Travel Council monthly meeting held in early February
2010. A prenote of the survey was then emailed to every travel council member a
day after the meeting. The formal survey invitation was sent out to the 337 CACVB
Travel Council members via email in mid-February, 2010. A web link was pro-
vided in the invitation email to navigate the potential respondents to the survey

webpage. Ten contacts were found to be out of office and unable to be reached.
Therefore, the total number of valid contacts for the first round of the survey was
327. A reminder email was sent a week after the initial survey invitation, followed
by another reminder email sent 2 weeks later. By the end of data collection, 161
completed or partially completed responses were returned, with a response rate of
47.7%. Among all the responses, 23 cases were removed because of excessive
missing values. The total valid sample size left for data analysis was 138.
Univariate normality of the items was examined by calculating the skewness
and kurtosis index for the variables. Both the skewness and kurtosis indices were
well within the range from 2 to +2, and were therefore not of concern. The multi-
variate normality and linearity between items were tested by calculating the
Mahalanobis distance for each case. No multivariate outliers were detected through
the Mahalanobis distance metric (Mahalanobis distance < 116.1, p < .001).
Three approaches were undertaken to test the representativeness of the sample
and the possible nonresponse bias. As the sector distribution of the entire sample
was already known from the CACVB database, a series of chi-square goodness-
of-fit tests were first conducted to compare the percentages of sector distribution
between the entire sample and the respondents. No significant (p < .05) difference
was detected. Another series of chi-square goodness-of-fit tests were then run to
compare the percentages of sector distribution between the respondents and non-
respondents. No significant difference (p < .05) was detected either. In addition,
wave analysis was conducted by using the late respondents (those who did not
complete the questionnaire until they received at least one email reminder, n = 68,
48.2%) as a proxy of nonrespondents and comparing them with the early respon-
dents (n = 73, 51.8%) for any systematic difference in their sociodemographic
attributes (i.e., gender, race, age, education, years of CACVB membership, and
organizational position) and personality trait measures. No significant difference
was found between the two groups in any of the tested variables.
Measures
Social Network Heterogeneity and Network Tie Strength

A structured positional generator was used to examine the richness of social
resources that a respondent had for his/her business in the local tourism industry.
Positional generators ask respondents to report whether they have contacts in
certain social positions (Knoke & Yang, 2008, p. 25). In this study, the respon-
dents were first asked to report if they knew people who worked at a managerial
level or owned a business in each of the 14 specified tourism sectors (see Table 2)
in the study area. If yes, the respondents were further asked to indicate the strength
of their social connections in each of the sectors on a scale of 1 = know as acquain-
tance, 2 = know as friend/relative, and 3 = know both acquaintances and friends.
The tie strength score was allocated to each respondent based on the different
levels of social connections he/she possessed rather than the number of social con-
nections he/she had at the same relationship level. As social ties at different

strength levels may serve different networking functions, the respondents possess-
ing both strong (i.e., friend/relative) and weak (i.e., acquaintance) ties in a certain
business sector were expected to have more comprehensive network effects than
those who only had either strong or weak ties, and were therefore given the highest
score (i.e., score = 3) in the scale. The collected data were used to explore the
respondents social network characteristics via two measures: the network hetero-
geneity and the average network tie strength.
The network heterogeneity was treated as a dependent variable for examining
how the boundary-spanning personnels personality traits would influence the
width of their social network in a professional setting. It was measured by count-
ing the number (ranging from 0 to 14) of specified tourism-related sectors where
the respondent knew at least one acquaintance working at the managerial level.
The strength of network ties bear on the overall volume and content of infor-
mation associated with contact: strong ties reflect intense, emotion-laden, and
reciprocal relationships that require time and energy to create and maintain;
weak ties reflect loose networks and are exemplified by the concept of a bridge
(Granovetter, 1973); and a combination of strong and weak ties contains both
relationship characteristics and network functions mentioned above. Accordingly,
the network tie strength in this study was conceptualized on both the level and
function of the respondents social network ties in the tourism industry. It was
measured by calculating the average tie strength (ranging from 0 dont have
any social network ties in any tourism sector to 3 have both strong and weak
social network ties in every specified tourism sector) of the respondents social
connections in all the 14 identified tourism sectors.
Personality Traits
Personality traits were measured using a modified version of the Big-Five
Inventory (BFI; Rammstedt & John, 2007). Consisting of 44 items, the original BFI
was developed by John, Donahue, and Kentle (1991), and its validity and reliability
have been verified in various studies (e.g., Johnson & Wolfe, 1995; Watson, Clark,
& Harkness, 1994). Based on this 44-item BFI, Rammstedt and John (2007) man-
aged to abbreviate the instrument to a shorter 10-item version with its reliability and
validity still retained at a significant level. They found that this 10-item short ver-
sion of BFI captured 70% of the full BFI variance and retained 85% of the retest
reliability. Discriminant and structural validity, however, remained essentially the
same (p. 210). The loss of this short BFI instrument was also noticed by the
researchers and was most substantial for the Agreeableness scale where extra mea-
suring items were suggested. The BFI used in this study was modified from this
10-item version of BFI by adding two items to each of the five personality dimen-
sions. These additional items were selected from the original 44-item BFI instru-
ment as researchers recommended (e.g., Rammstedt & John 2007). The final
instrument for this study had 20 items measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The personality constructs
were first analyzed using exploratory factor analysis (maximum likelihood with

Table 3
Five Dimensions of Personality Traits
Personality Dimensions Range Mean SD Cronbachs
Extraversion 1.25-7 5.32 1.29 .870

is reserved*
is outgoing, sociable
is talkative
tends to be quiet*
Agreeableness 2.25-7 5.84 0.87 .732
is generally trusting
tends to find fault with others*
is considerate & kind to almost everyone
is sometimes rude to others*
Conscientiousness 3-7 5.74 0.91 .715
tends to be lazy*
does a thorough job
can be somewhat careless*
tends to be disorganized
Neuroticism 1-6.5 3.12 1.08 .707
is relaxed, handles stress well*
gets nervous easily
worries a lot
is emotionally stable, not easily upset*
Openness 2.75-7 5.38 1.08 0.770
has few artistic interests*
has an active imagination
is inventive
is original, comes up with new ideas
Note: Measures on a scale of 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.

*Was reverse coded.
varimax rotation). The results clearly suggested a five-factor solution as expected

(see Table 3). The Conbachs alpha values for the five personality constructs were
all more than .7, indicating the acceptable internal reliability of the measurements.
To test the reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of the
personality constructs, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was also performed
on the scale using covariance matrices and the maximum likelihood estimation
procedure in AMOS20 (see Table 4). Results of the CFA suggest that the Big-
Five model fit the data at an acceptable level (comparative fit index = .94, good-
ness-of-fit index = .898, adjusted goodness of fit index = .814, root mean square
error of approximation = .05). The composite reliability value for each factor
was all more than .7, indicating good reliability of the scale. The average vari-
ance extracted values for all the factors were larger than the threshold value of
.5 (except for Conscientiousness) and smaller than their corresponding

Table 4
Summary Statistics of Confirmatory Factor Analysis on Personality Constructs
Model (Variable) CR AVE MSV ASV 2 df CFI GFI AGFI RMSEA
206.3 160 .94 .898 .814 .05

Extraversion .826 .614 .292 .095
Agreeableness .743 .523 .239 .072
Conscientiousness .718 .491 .239 .095
Neuroticism .732 .522 .066 .045
Openness .797 .509 .292 .113
Note: CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted; MSV = maximum

shared squared variance; ASV = average shared squared variance; CFI = comparative fit
index, GFI = goodness-of-fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness of fit index; RMSEA = root
mean square error of approximation.
composite reliability values, suggesting that the scale had acceptable convergent
validity. In addition, the average variance extracted values for all the factors
were larger than their values of maximum shared squared variance and average
shared squared variance, which indicated the adequate discriminant validity of
the scale (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010).
Sociodemographics and Professional Experience. In addition to personality, the

boundary-spanning personnels sociodemographic characteristics and professional
experience were also controlled in the models. Sociodemographics have been
extensively examined in network studies for the homophily effects that similar
people tend to network with each other. In social network research, similarity has
been operationalized on such sociodemographic dimensions as age, gender, educa-
tion, prestige, social class, tenure, and occupation (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, &
Cook, 2001). In this study, a number of sociodemographic variables were con-
trolled for their possible effects on individuals network relationships. These vari-
ables included age, gender, and education. Race was not controlled in the analysis,
as the majority of the respondents were White, and only one African American
respondent was found in the sample. In addition to sociodemographic variables,
individuals professional experience (i.e., years of working experience in tourism
business) was also controlled in the analysis. It was anticipated that the boundary-
spanning personnels professional experiences would be positively related to the
width and depth of their business connections in the tourism industry.
Results
Profile of Respondents
Table 5 summarizes the basic sociodemographic and professional character-

istics of the respondents. Around 60% of the respondents were female (n = 69).
About half (n = 59, 49.1%) of the respondents fell in the age category of 30 to

Table 5
Sociodemographic Profile of the Respondents
Variable Frequency Percentage
Gender
Female 69 57.5
Male 51 42.5
Age (years)
20-29 11 9.2
30-39 28 23.3
40-49 31 25.8
50-59 37 30.8
60-69 13 10.8
Education
High school or less 3 2.5
Some college education 20 16.9
College graduate 74 62.7
Master degree 16 13.6
Doctoral degree 1 0.8
Professional degree 4 3.4
Professional experience
1-5 years 21 17.8
6-10 years 23 19.5
11-15 years 25 21.2
16-20 years 15 12.7
21-25 years 21 17.8
More than 25 years 13 11.0
49, and more than 30% (n = 37) in the age category of 50 to 59 (n = 37, 30.8%).
The majority (n = 95, 80.5%) of the respondents had a college degree or higher.
The respondents average working experience in their current business field was
15.6 years. More than 40% (n = 49) of the respondents reported that they had
worked in their current business field for more than 15 years.
Sector Differences in Social Network Structures
The distribution of respondents business sectors is presented in Table 6. One

hundred and thirty-eight respondents provided information on their work affili-
ations by sectors. The majority of the respondents (n = 109, 79%) were in the
sectors of Accommodation (n = 41, 29.7%), Tourism Intermediaries (n = 34,
24.6%), Food and Beverage (n = 15, 10.9%), and Entertainment Businesses
(n = 19, 13.8%). In addition, those working in Cultural Attractions (n = 10,
7.1%) and Recreation Operators (n = 8, 5.8%) also accounted for a substantial
proportion of the respondents. No respondent was found from Natural
Attractions.

Table 6
Sector Distribution of the Entire Sample and the Respondents
Entire Sample Respondents

Chi-Square
Sector Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Values
Accommodation 85 25.2 41 29.7 0.8

Food and Beverage 46 13.6 15 10.9 0.54
Cultural Attractions 27 8.0 10 7.1 0.1
Recreation Operators 17 5.0 8 5.8 0.13
Entertainment 47 13.9 19 13.8 0
Organizations
Tourism Intermediaries 80 23.7 34 24.6 0.03
Transportation 9 2.7 4 2.9 0.01
Tourism Media 2 0.6 1 0.7 0.02
Tourism Association 3 0.9 2 1.4 0.28
Local Business 2 0.6 0 0 0.6
Organizations
Government Bodies 1 0.3 1 0.7 0.53
Academic Institutions 2 0.6 0 0 0.6
Other Services 16 4.7 3 2.2 1.33
Total 337 100 138 100
Analysis of variance was performed to examine if the respondents network

heterogeneity and average network tie strength differed by their business sectors.
No significant difference (p < .05) was detected in either network measure.
Personality and Network Structures
A series of multiple regression analyses were performed to examine how the

tourism boundary-spanning personnels personality traits affected their network
heterogeneity and average network tie strength in a professional context. Table 7
presents the mean, standard deviation, and correlation matrix of the key variables.
The descriptive statistics on network structures show that, on average, the respon-
dents had at least some acquaintanceships from about 11 (SD = 2.76) different
sectors related to the local tourism industry. The average strength of the network
relationships that the respondents had in all the identified tourism-related sectors
was close to friend/relative level (M = 1.94, SD = 0.627). Significant correla-
tions were found between some variables but were still considered acceptable as
the inflation variance factors scores in the regression models were below 10, the
commonly accepted threshold indicating serious multicollinearity (Ryan, 1997).
The first three regression models in Table 8 were constructed for testing the
personality effects on network heterogeneity in a tourism business context.
Including only the control variables, Model 1 (baseline model) was significant
(p < .01) and explained 13.7% of the total variance. Age (B = 0.609, p < .01)

Table 7
Mean, Standard Deviation, and Correlation Matrix of Variables
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1.Network 11.4 2.76

Heterogeneity
2.Network Tie 1.95 0.63
Strength
3.Gender .43 .49 .12 .15
4.Age 4.11 1.16 .1 .05 .04
5.Education 3.03 .87 .18 .07 .01 .02
6.Professional 15.58 9.51 .19* .02 .12 .48** .02
Experience
7.Extraversion 5.32 1.29 .30** .24** .09 .02 .06 .01
8.Agreeableness 5.73 .81 .13 .23* .02 .03 .3** .004 .01
9.Conscientiousness. 5.65 .93 .01 .01 .17 .07 .09 .01 .15 .34**
10.Neuroticism 2.98 .99 .10 .02 .11 .14 .02 .11 .21* .08 .23*
11.Openness 5.29 1.05 .36** .29** .14 .06 .09 .02 .39** .11 .17 .2*
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Table 8
Results of Multiple Regression Analysis on Social Network Heterogeneity
Variables Model 1, M (SD) Model 2, M (SD) Model 3, M (SD) Model 4, M (SD)
Constant 10.576 (1.21)*** 7.981 (2.34)* 5.44 (2.54)* 11.4 (0.30)***

Gender 0.524 (.48) 0.399 (0.49) 0.448 (0.49)
Age 0.609 (0.23)** 0.637 (0.23)** 0.592 (0.23)*
Education 0.642 (0.28)* 0.655 (0.27)** 0.601 (0.28)*
Professional 0.086 (0.028)** 0.089 (0.03)*** 0.083 (0.03)**
Experience
Extraversion 0.463 (0.2)* 0.445 (0.19)* 0.497 (0.20)*
Agreeableness 0.14 (0.29) 0.279 (0.29) 0.226 (0.31)
Conscientiousness 0.172 (0.27) 0.091 (0.27) 0.109 (0.29)
Neuroticism 0.209 (0.23) 0.127 (0.22) 0.077 (0.23)
Openness 0.37 (0.24) 0.394 (0.23) 0.359 (0.24)
Extraversion Age 0.134 (0.19)
Extraversion 0.173 (0.26)
Education
Extraversion 0.025 (0.02)
Profnl. experience
R2 0.137 0.121 0.259 0.272
Adjusted R2 0.106 0.082 0.196 0.188
F value (df) 4.398 (4)** 3.098 (5)* 4.118 (9)*** 3.212 (12)**
Note: All the variables in Model 4 were mean centered.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
was found to be negatively related to network heterogeneity. Education level

(B = 0.642, p < .05) and years of professional experience (B = 0.086, p < .01)

were positively related to network heterogeneity. The Big Five personality traits
were exclusively included in Model 2, which was significant (p < .001) and
explained 12.1% of the variance. In this model, Extraversion (B = 0.463, p <
.05) was found to be significantly related to individuals network heterogeneity.
Individuals with higher scores on Extraversion tended to have more diverse net-
work relationships in the tourism industry. Model 3 added the main effects of
personality into the baseline model (i.e., Model 1). This full model was also
found to be statistically significant (p < .001) and explained 25.9% of the total
variance. The control variables of age, education, and years of professional
experience remained significant. As to the five personality traits, Extraversion
(B = 0.445, p < .05) was significant in the full model. It could be concluded that
Extraversion had significant positive effects on the boundary-spanning person-
nels network heterogeneity in a tourism business context.
The possible moderating effects of age, education level, and professional
experience were examined in Model 4. The moderator terms were compound
variables that were formed by respectively multiplying age, education level, and
professional experience by Extraversion. This model was significant (p < .001)
as well and explained 27.2% of the total variance. The main effects of age, edu-
cation level, professional experience, and Extraversion remained significant, but
none of the moderator terms was significant (p < .05). The results indicated that
age, education level, and professional experience did not moderate the relation-
ship between network heterogeneity and Extraversion.
Table 9 shows the results of the three regression models on the relationships
between individuals personality traits and their average network tie strength in a
tourism business context. Model 1 was the baseline model for the control vari-
ables, and it was not significant. With only the Big Five personality traits included,
Model 2 was significant (p < .01) and explained 17.1% of the total variance. In this
model, Agreeableness (B = 0.021, p < .01) was significantly related to individuals
average network tie strength. Individuals with higher scores of Agreeableness
tended to have stronger network ties in the tourism industry. Model 3 added the
main effects of personality into the baseline model (i.e., Model 1). This full model
was also found to be statistically significant (p < .05) and explained 28.7% of the
total variance. None of the control variables was significant, and Agreeableness (B
= 0.226, p < .01) remained significant in this full model. The results indicated that
Agreeableness had significant positive effects on the boundary-spanning person-
nels network tie strength in a tourism business context.
Assessment of the Effects of Common Method Biases
The issue of relying on self-reported data inevitably raises the question of

common method biases. Two tests were conducted to determine the extent of pos-
sible method variances in the current data. First, Harmans one-factor test was run
to control for common method variance (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). All the vari-
ables used in this study were entered into a factor analysis, and the unrotated

Table 9
Results of Ordinary Least Square Regression Analysis on Average Social Network
Tie Strength
Variables Model 1, M (SD) Model 2, M (SD) Model 3, M (SD)
Constant 1.828 (0.3)*** 0.575 (2.34)* 0.351 (0.63)*

Gender 0.168 (0.12) 0.198 (0.12)
Age 0.18 (0.06) 0.043 (0.06)
Education 0.05 (0.07) 0.045 (0.07)
Professional Experience 0.001 (0.007) 0.002 (0.007)
Extraversion 0.093 (0.05) 0.083 (0.05)
Agreeableness 0.21 (0.07)** 0.226 (0.07)**
Conscientiousness 0.109 (0.06) 0.05 (0.07)
Neuroticism 0.027 (0.06) 0.025 (0.06)
Openness 0.128 (0.06) 0.085 (0.06)
R2 0.023 0.171 0.287
Adjusted R2 0.012 0.134 0.125
F value (df) 0.65 (4) 4.646 (5)** 1.766 (21)*
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
factor solution was examined to determine the number of factors. In this study,
factor analysis resulted in nine factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, and they
accounted for 70.08% of the total variance. As a single factor construct did not
emerge and Factor 1 only accounted for 19.01% of the variance, common method
bias was unlikely to contaminate the results observed in this study.
To further confirm this result, a single-method-factor approach (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003) was also adopted to assess the possible
effects of common method variance in the models by controlling for the effects
of an unmeasured latent methods factor. In this approach, a multifactor measure-
ment model and a measurement model with a latent common method factor
were tested and compared for both the models on network heterogeneity and
average network tie strength (see results in Table 10). The comparisons of struc-
tural parameters indicated that while the method factor did improve the model
fit for the model on network heterogeneity, it accounted for only a small portion
(16%) of the variance, which is less than the amount of method variance (27%)
observed by Williams, Cote, and Buckley (1989). The common method factor
did not improve the model fit for the model on average network tie strength.
These results suggest that the five personality traits, rather than common method
variance, are the likely source of the variance found in both the network hetero-
geneity and network tie strength.
Discussion and Conclusion
Using the Big-Five model, this study aimed to understand the associations
between the boundary-spanning personnels personality traits and their social

Table 10
Comparison of Models With and Without Common Method Variance Controlled
Model Chi-Square df CFI RMSEA NFI
Models on network heterogeneity

Measurement Model* 239.09 175 .92 .056 .763
Measurement Model + Method Factor* 234.12 174 .925 .054 .768
Models on network tie strength
Measurement Model* 216.69 175 .946 .045 .78
Measurement Model + Method Factor* 257.81 174 .892 .064 .738
Note: CFI = comparative fit index; RMSR = root square residual; NFI = normed-fit index.
*p < .001.
network heterogeneity and tie strength in the tourism industry. With respon-
dents sociodemographics and professional experiences controlled, multiple
regression analyses found that Extraversion had a significant positive effect on
the heterogeneity of individuals social networks, and Agreeableness was posi-
tively related to the strength of their social network ties in a business context.
This study further confirmed the significance of extraversion in interpersonal
relations (e.g., Vodosek, 2003; Wehrli, 2008). The findings revealed that extra-
version played a critical role in the formation of individuals social networks in
a business-oriented social environment where the development of interpersonal
relationship might go beyond individuals intrinsic motivations and involve
social capital building for business and professional purposes. The building of
social capital for business purposes requires the development of social connec-
tions with people having diverse personal and professional backgrounds. This,
to some extent, contradicts the homophily principle in social networking that
people tend to interact with others who are similar to them. In this study, extra-
version appears to have influenced the heterogeneity of individuals business-
oriented social networks, because people with higher levels of extraversion have
a higher tendency to initiate social interactions with those who were different
from them. Additionally, research has noted that individuals with high levels of
agreeableness see less conflict during their interactions with others, and tend to
rate others highly in terms of global social desirability (Graziano, Jensen-
Campbell, & Hair, 1996). It could be understood that people with higher levels
of agreeableness are more likely to trust those they know as friends. This may
explain why agreeableness contributed to the strength of the boundary-spanning
personnels social network ties in a business environment in this study.
Social network researchers have proposed that in order for individuals to
increase social capital for themselves or their organizations, they need to know
people who are dissimilar to themselves in terms of personal attributes (Baker,
2000; Granovetter, 1973). By going beyond the traditional predictors (e.g., prox-
imity and similarity) of network relationship, this study contributed to the

current theoretical efforts in incorporating psychological perspectives into social

network research. It is important to recognize that personality traits may influ-
ence individuals social networking intentions as well as networking behaviors.
In their attempts to explore the potential impacts of personality on social net-
work formation, only a few studies have examined the effect of personality from
a generic and comprehensive perspective (Vodosek, 2003; Wehrli, 2008). This
study makes an empirical contribution to this academic endeavor by investigat-
ing the influences of five basic personality dimensions on the boundary-span-
ning personnels social network heterogeneity and tie strength in a tourism
business environment.
When examining the relationship between personality and social network,
prior studies attempted to associate individuals personality characteristics with
their structural position (e.g., network centrality) in a social network (Burt et al.,
1998; Mehra et al., 2001; Vodosek, 2003). The relationships between personality
and individuals social network content and tie strength seem to have been over-
looked. From this study it was evident that personality traits could also predict
the heterogeneity of individuals social network as well as the strength of their
network relationships. Previous research has shown that among the five basic
dimensions of personality, extraversion tends to be most influential to an indi-
viduals social network structure (e.g., Vodosek, 2003; Wehrli, 2008). However,
it was not the whole story in this study. Agreeableness was also found to play an
important role in the strength of network relationships. The results of this study
suggested that different aspects of an individuals social network might be pre-
dicted by different dimensions of his/her personality.
There are also a number of practical implications that could be drawn on the
findings of this study. The results indicated that based on personality, it might be
easier for some people than others to form diverse social connections and to man-
age the strength of these relationships. Therefore, the study suggests that tourism
professionals, particularly those serving as the business boundary-spanning per-
sonnel, should be fully aware of their personality in order to manage their social
capital actively and effectively. Given the fact that organizations business net-
working usually needs to be carried out by their boundary-spanning personnel, a
systematic understanding of the relationships between personality and employ-
ees social networking behavior would also help tourism businesses with their
human resource strategies. With different networking needs or being at different
network development stages, tourism businesses may need to look for employees
with different personalities to undertake the corresponding networking tasks.
More specifically, if a tourism businesss current networking goal is to expand its
business network scope and develop connections with a variety of other tourism
businesses and organizations, it probably should stress the importance of having
an extraverted personality when recruiting or training its relevant staff. However,
if a tourism businesss networking priority is to maintain and strengthen its exist-
ing business connections, then agreeableness might be the most desirable person-
ality trait that it looks for in its boundary-spanning personnel.

A number of limitations were noted in this study. First, the research partici-
pants of this study were limited to those tourism business representatives associ-
ated with a local destination marketing organization. It is still unclear whether
these destination marketing organizationassociated tourism businesses repre-
sent the entire local tourism industry. Second, the network tie strength in this
study was measured at the average level, and no information was available
regarding the possible sector difference in network tie strength. Third, while the
employers might have particular networking expectations/needs for their bound-
ary-spanning personnel in a business context, this possible organizational-level
influence was not considered in this study.
Future research should address these limitations of the study. In order to
obtain a full picture of the networking patterns and behaviors of the tourism
boundary-spanning personnel in a destination, future empirical work needs to
build on a more generic and representative sample of the local tourism industry.
It is possible that for tourism businesses in different sectors, the strength of their
network ties in a particular sector might have different meanings to them. For
example, having a close relationship with a transportation service provider
might be more important to a hotel than to a restaurant. Instead of using an aver-
age measure as was used in this study, future research should consider these
possible sector variations when operationalizing network tie strength. In addi-
tion, it is reasonable to expect that the boundary-spanning personnels social
networking patterns and behaviors in a business setting are not only determined
by their personal characteristics (e.g., personality traits), but also affected by the
business networking needs of their employers. Future research should take these
points into account when examining the boundary-spanning personnels social
networks in a business environment. All these avenues of future research will
allow further light to be shed on this increasingly important field.
References
Anderson, C., John, O., Keltner, D., & Kring, A. (2001). Who Attains Social Status?
Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in three social groups. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 116-132.
Augustyn, M., & Knowles, T. (2000). Performance of tourism partnerships: A focus on
York. Tourism Management, 21, 341-351.
Baker, W. (2000). Achieving success through social capital. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Barrick, M., & Mount, M. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job perfor-
mance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Benet-Martnez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic
groups: Multitrait method analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of
Bjrk, P., & Virtanen, H. (2005). What tourism project managers need to know about
cooperation facilitators. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 5,
212-230.

Blau, P. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York, NY: Greenwood.
Burt, R. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 22, 345-431.
Burt, R., Jannotta, J., & Mahoney, J. (1998). Personality correlates of structural holes.
Social Networks, 20, 63-87.
Casciaro, T. (1998). Seeing things clearly: Social structure, personality, and accuracy in
social network perception. Social Networks, 20, 331-351.
City of Charleston. (2009). Charleston information packet. Retrieved from http://www.
charleston-sc.gov/shared/docs/0/charleston%20information%20packet%209-9-09.
pdf
Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology, 94, S95-S121.
Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on sub-
jective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 38, 668-678.
Costen, W., & Barrash, D. (2006). ACE-ing the hiring process: A customer service ori-
entation model. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, 5(1), 35-49.
Currall, S., & Judge, T. (1995). Measuring trust between organizational boundary role
persons. Organizational Behavior Human Decision Processes, 64, 151-170.
Dickson, P., & Weaver, K. (1997). Environmental determinants and individual-level
moderators of alliance use. Academy of Management Journal, 2, 404-425.
Frank, K., & Fahrbach, K. (1999). Organizational culture as a complex system: Balance
and information in models of influence and selection. Organization Science, 10,
253-277.
Goldberg, L. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in
personality lexicons. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychol-
ogy (pp. 141-165). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78,
1360-1380.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embed-
dedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481-510.
Graziano, W., Jensen-Campbell, L., & Hair, E. (1996). Perceiving interpersonal con-
flict and reacting to it: The case for agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social
Gulati, R., & Westphal, J. (1998). The dark side of embeddedness: An examination of
the influence of direct and indirect board interlocks and CEO/Board relationships on
interfirm alliances. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting,
San Diego, CA.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Higgins, M., & Kram, K. (2001). Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A developmen-
tal network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 264-288.
Jehn, K., & Shah, P. (1997). Interpersonal relationships and task performance: An exam-
ination of mediating processes in friendship and acquaintance groups. Journal of

Jensen-Campbell, L., Adams, R., Perry, D., Workman, K., Furdella, J., & Egan, S. (2002).
Agreeableness, extraversion, and peer relations in early adolescence: Winning friends
and deflecting aggression. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 224-251.
John, O. (1990). The Big Five factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the nat-
ural language and in questionnaires. In L. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality:
Theory and research (pp. 66-100). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
John, O., Donahue, E., & Kentle, R. (1991). The Big Five InventoryVersions 4a and
54. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Johnson, S., & Wolfe, R. (1995). Personality as a predictor of college performance.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 177-185.
Karatepe, O. (2012). The effects of coworker and perceived organizational support on
hotel employee outcomes: The moderating role of job embeddedness. Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Research, 36, 495-516.
Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2003). Social networks and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Kim, H., Shin, K., & Swanger, N. (2009). Burnout and engagement: A comparative anal-
ysis using the Big Five personality dimensions. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 28, 96-104.
Kim, H., Shin, K., & Umbreit, T. (2007). Hotel job burnout: The role of personality char-
acteristics. Hospitality Management, 26, 421-434.
Knoke, D., & Yang, S. (2008). Social network analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Leung, R., & Law, R. (2010). A review of personality research in the tourism and hospi-
tality context. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 27, 439-459.
Lin, N. (2001a). Building a network theory of social capital. In N. Lin, K. Cook, & B.
Burt (Eds.), Social capital: Theory and research (pp. 3-29). New York, NY: Aldine
de Gruyter.
Lin, N. (2001b). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
McCarty, C., & Green, H. (2005, February). Personality and personal networks. Paper
presented at the Sunbelt XXV International Sunbelt Social Network Conference,
Redondo Beach, CA.
McPherson, J., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in
social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444.
Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. (2001). The social networks of high and low self-
monitors: Implications for workplace performance. Administrative Science Quarterly,
46, 121-146.
Morrison, A. (1998). Small firm co-operative marketing in a peripheral tourism region.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 10(5), 191-197.
OECD. (2000). Measuring the role of tourism in OECD economies: The OECD man-
ual on tourism satellite accounts and employment. Paris, France: Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development.
ONeill, J., & Xiao, Q. (2010). Effects of organizational/occupational characteristics and
personality traits on hotel manager emotional exhaustion. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 29, 652-658.
Perry, M. (1999). Small firm and network economies. London, England: Routledge.
Perry-Smith, J., & Shalley, C. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic
social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28, 89-106.

Podolny, J. M., & Baron, J. N. (1997). Relationships and resources: Social networks and
mobility in the workplace. American Sociological Review, 62, 673-693.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research:
Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531-544.
Powell, W. W., Koput, K., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration
and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 41, 116-145.
Rammstedt, B., & John, O. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A
10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of
Research in Personality, 41, 203-212.
Rowley, T. J., Baum, J. A. C., Shipilov, A. V., Greve, H. R., & Rao, H. (2004). Competing
in groups. Managerial and Decision Economics, 25, 453-471.
Russel, D. W., Booth, B., Reed, D., & Laughlin, P. R. (1997). Personality, social net-
works, and perceived social support among alcoholics: A structural equation analysis.
Journal of Personality, 63, 649-692.
Ryan, T. (1997). Modern regression analysis. New York, NY: Wiley.
Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: A handbook. (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.
Scott, N., Baggio, R., & Cooper, C. (2008). Network analysis and tourism: From theory
to practice. Clevedon, England: Channel View.
Sltten, T., & Mehmetoglu, M. (2011). Antecedents and effects of engaged frontline
employees: A study from the hospitality industry. Managing Service Quality, 21(1),
88-107.
Solnet, D. (2007, July). Social identity theory: A role in hotel industry research. Paper
presented at the 2007 Annual International CHRIE Conference & Exposition, Dallas,
TX.
Teng, C., Huang, K., & Tsai, I. (2007). Effects of personality on service quality in busi-
ness transactions. Service Industries Journal, 27, 849-863.
Tinsley, R., & Lynch, P. (2001). Small tourism business networks and destination devel-
opment. Hospitality Management, 20, 367-378.
Tracey, L., Sturman, M., & Tews, M. (2007). Ability versus personality. Cornell Hotel
and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 48, 313-322.
Tushman, M., & Thomas, J. (1981). Characteristics and external orientation of boundary
spanning individuals. Academy of Management Journal, 24(1), 83-98.
UNWTO. (2008). 2008 Tourism satellite account: Recommended methodological frame-
work. Retrieved from http://unstats.un.org/unsd/statcom/doc08/BG-TSA.pdf
Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic per-
formance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61,
674-698.
Vodosek, M. (2003). Personality and the formation of social networks. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Atlanta, GA.
Watson, D., Clark, L., & Harkness, A. (1994). Structures of personality and their rel-
evance to psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 18-31.
Wehrli, S. (2008). Personality on social network sites: An application of the five factor
model (ETH Zrich Sociology Working Paper). Retrieved from http://repec.ethz.ch/
ets/papers/wehrli_studivz_big5.pdf

Widiger, T., & Trull, T. (1992). Personality and psychopathology: An application of the
five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 60, 363-393.
Williams, L. J., Cote, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (1989). Lack of method variance in self-
reported affect and perceptions of work: Reality or artifact? Journal of Applied
Submitted July 1, 2012

Accepted March 24, 2014
Refereed Anonymously
Tianyu Ying, PhD (e-mail: tianyu.ying@otago.ac.nz), is a lecturer in the Department of

Tourism, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. William C. Norman, PhD
(e-mail: wnorman@clemson.edu), is a professor in the Department of Parks, Recreation,
and Tourism Management, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA.

Ying 2014

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Ying 2014

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Journal of Hospitality &

Tourism Research http://jht.sagepub.com/

Personality Effects on the Social Network Structure of Boundary-Spanning

The online version of this article can be found at:

International Council on Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Education

Email Alerts: http://jht.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

>> OnlineFirst Version

Tourism businesses participate in network relationships with others to obtain resources

Keywords: tourism business network; social network; boundary-spanning

Tourism has long been viewed as a system where interdependence is essential

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on October 17, 2014

similarities in gender, race, values, and education level) on the boundary-spanning

Conceptualizing The Boundary-Spanning Personnels

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on October 17, 2014

Differentiating along a nominal dimension (Blau, 1977), network heteroge-

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on October 17, 2014

The Effects of Personality on Social Network Structure

Traditionally, network theorists have devoted much of their attention to the

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on October 17, 2014

Social Network Heterogeneity Social Network Tie Strength

conscientiousness is a key personality trait related to the work performance of

a significant part in the boundary-spanning personnels networking strategies for

The difficulty has long been recognized in determining whether a socioeco-

Sector Category Subgroups

1.Accommodation Hotel, Motel, B&Bs, Inns, Resort, Campground,

Source: Adapted from OECD (2000); UNWTO (2008).

inventories used by major international organizations (e.g., OECD, 2000;

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on October 17, 2014

Social Network Heterogeneity and Network Tie Strength

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on October 17, 2014

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on October 17, 2014

Personality Dimensions Range Mean SD Cronbachs

Extraversion 1.25-7 5.32 1.29 .870

Note: Measures on a scale of 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.

varimax rotation). The results clearly suggested a five-factor solution as expected

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on October 17, 2014

Model (Variable) CR AVE MSV ASV 2 df CFI GFI AGFI RMSEA

206.3 160 .94 .898 .814 .05

Note: CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted; MSV = maximum

Sociodemographics and Professional Experience. In addition to personality, the

Table 5 summarizes the basic sociodemographic and professional character-

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on October 17, 2014

Variable Frequency Percentage

Sector Differences in Social Network Structures

The distribution of respondents business sectors is presented in Table 6. One

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on October 17, 2014

Entire Sample Respondents

Accommodation 85 25.2 41 29.7 0.8

Analysis of variance was performed to examine if the respondents network

Personality and Network Structures

A series of multiple regression analyses were performed to examine how the

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on October 17, 2014

1.Network 11.4 2.76

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Variables Model 1, M (SD) Model 2, M (SD) Model 3, M (SD) Model 4, M (SD)

Constant 10.576 (1.21)*** 7.981 (2.34)* 5.44 (2.54)* 11.4 (0.30)***

Note: All the variables in Model 4 were mean centered.

was found to be negatively related to network heterogeneity. Education level

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on October 17, 2014

Assessment of the Effects of Common Method Biases

The issue of relying on self-reported data inevitably raises the question of

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Uni of Southern Queensland on October 17, 2014

Variables Model 1, M (SD) Model 2, M (SD) Model 3, M (SD)

Constant 1.828 (0.3)*** 0.575 (2.34)* 0.351 (0.63)*

1.Accommodation Hotel, Motel, B&Bs, Inns, Resort, Campground,

1.Network 11.4 2.76

p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.