Emotional intelligence and individual differences in affective processes underlying task‐contingent conscientiousness

Abstract

Organisational researchers have recently begun to focus on the more dynamic aspects of personality in the workplace. The present study examines individual differences in the affective processes that underlie one such dynamic construct, task-contingent conscientiousness. Using experience sampling data collected over 3 weeks from 201 managers, we show (a) that individuals differ substantially from each other in the paths that connect task demand, positive and negative affect, and conscientious behaviour; (b) that these individual differences cohere to define person School, UNSW Sydney. His research focuses on the effects of personality and individual differences, emotions, motivation, and time-varying factors (such as experience) on performance at work. Dr Nadin Beckmann is a psychologist and an Associate Professor at the School of Education at Durham University, UK. Her current research projects focus on the dynamic, process-oriented approaches to personality. Other related research interests include psychometric assessment, feedback processing, and technologybased learning. Robert Wood is professor at the AGSM. He completed his PhD at the University of Washington. His current research focuses on dynamic approaches to personality, emergent leadership, and adaptability. How to cite this article: Minbashian A, Beckmann N, Wood RE. Emotional intelligence and individual differences in affective processes underlying task-contingent conscientiousness.

Personality dynamics at work: The effects of form, time, and context of variability

“…3. Subsets of the data have been included in Wood et al (2019), Minbashian et al (2018, Minbashian et al (2010), Fisher et al (2013, Birney et al (2012), Beckmann et al (2013), Beckmann et al (2015, Birney et al (2017), Birney et al (2018 and Minbashian et al (2019). We provide further information, including information about the ALL Flexible Expertise data base, in the supplementary material.…”

Editorial: Dynamic Personality Science. Integrating between-Person Stability and within-Person Change

“…A central objective of this Research Topic is to integrate and, where possible, to synthesize different conceptual and methodological approaches to the study of personality and their empirical outcomes. Work on the integrative perspective has been developing on several fronts, including: (1) A general acknowledgement that there is both stability and variability in personality and that it is worth studying both short- (state) and long-term (trait) personality change (e.g., Liu and Huang ); (2) Comparison and the linking of findings from within- and between-person analyses (e.g., Wright et al ; Fayn et al ); (3) The conceptualisation of units of personality that are based on within-person data and represent individual differences in within-person structures and processes (e.g., Minbashian et al, 2010 , in press ); (4) Going beyond the descriptions of groups and individuals solely in nomothetic and idiographic terms, respectively (e.g., Lakey ; Wright et al ; Cripps et al ).…”

A dynamic reframing of the social/personal identity dichotomy

“…A technique ideally suited to such studies is experience sampling, where research subjects provide data about their psychological state at several time points in a single day (typically via a smartphone app). This method has grown in popularity in research on emotion (e.g., Fisher, Minbashian, Beckmann, & Wood, 2013) and personality (e.g., Fleeson, 2007;Minbashian, Beckmann, & Wood, 2018), but is uncommon in identity research. Experience sampling would allow researchers to track changes in how individuals experience a single identity in the course of the work day, and use various analytic techniques, such as hierarchical linear modelling and multilevel structural equation modelling, to assess how patterns of variation along the social and personal dimensions might relate to certain outcomes.…”