SummaryThis research examined the prediction of the form and direction of work role performance from the Big 5 model of personality traits. Nine dimensions of work role performance are created by cross-classifying the form of work role behavior (proficient, adaptive, and proactive) with the level at which that behavior contributes to effectiveness (individual, team, and organizational). The authors collected self-report measurements of personality from 1447 government employees and supervisor ratings of performance.Openness to experience and agreeableness had opposing effects on individual proactivity -openness was positively related, whereas agreeableness was negatively related to this dimension. Openness to experience also had opposing effects on the form of work role performance -it was positively related to individual and organizational proactivity but negatively related to team and organizational proficiency. Conscientiousness was a stronger predictor of individual task proficiency than the remaining eight dimensions, whereas the reverse was true for neuroticism. Extraversion was negatively related to individual proficiency. Using a broad taxonomy of performance that incorporates a theoretical framework for distinguishing between constructs shows promise for identifying which personality traits are important for which aspects of work role performance.

No abstract

Goal orientation theories were used to generate predictions regarding the moderating effect of goal orientation profiles on task performance growth trajectories. Participants were given multiple trials of practice on an air traffic control task. Analyses were conducted using growth curve modeling. As expected, individuals with high performance-approach orientation improved their task performance scores faster than their counterparts. The interaction between mastery and performance-avoid orientations moderated the performance growth curve such that individuals with high mastery and low performance-avoid orientation improved their performance at the fastest rate. The interaction between performance-approach and performance-avoid orientations also moderated the performance growth curve. Individuals with low performance-approach and high performanceavoid orientation improved their performance at the slowest rate. These findings contribute to theory and practice by elucidating how various combinations of goal orientations influence the rate of skill acquisition. Goal Orientation Profiles 3 Goal Orientation Profiles and Task Performance Growth Trajectories Goal orientation refers to the pattern of cognition and action that results from pursuing achievement goals (DeShon & Gillespie, 2005). It plays an important role within achievement contexts (Dweck & Leggett, 1988), and has been associated with concepts such as meta-cognitive activity (e.g., Schmidt & Ford, 2003), intrinsic motivation (e.g., Elliot & Church, 1997) and learning strategies (Zusho, Pintrich, & Coppola, 2003). We focus on the widely-used three-factor model of goal orientation, which consists of mastery, performance-approach and performance-avoid dimensions (Elliot & Church, 1997; Vandewalle, 1997) 1 Goal Orientations and Growth Trajectories. This model distinguishes between the two forms of performance orientation rather than merging them together as is done in the two-factor model. This separation is vital because theory and empirical research suggest that they are independent constructs with differential antecedents and consequences (e.g. Payne, Satoris, & Beaubien, 2007). The current study extends goal orientation research by using this three-factor model to generate and test predictions regarding goal orientation profiles and performance growth trajectories. We use a complex relative judgment task to test our hypotheses. Theory implies that goal orientation dimensions should influence the rate at which individuals acquire task knowledge and skill (Dweck, 1986). However, most research has only examined the effects of goal orientations at a single point in time and most studies that have assessed these relationships at two or more time points have conducted analyses at the betweenperson level (i.e. assessed mean differences in performance between individuals at discrete time