Within-Person Personality Variability in the Work Context: A Blessing or a Curse for Job Performance?

Abstract

Only recently, the question whether within-person personality variability is a blessing or a curse for job performance has reached the agendas of Industrial and Organizational (I-O) psychology researchers. Yet, this limited stream of research resulted in inconsistent findings, and only little understanding exists about the role of rater source and mean-level personality in this relationship. Broadly following socioanalytic theory, the present study examined the extent to which self- and other-rated within-person personality variability predict self- and other-rated job performance, and whether this is moderated by mean-level personality. Within-person personality variability indices and job performance evaluations were obtained from an experience sampling study including N = 166 teachers, N = 95 supervisors, and N = 69 classes (including 1,354 students). Results showed that—above and beyond the effects of mean-level personality—self-rated within-person variability was positively associated with self-rated job performance, while other-rated within-person variability was negatively associated with other-ratings of performance. Many interactions with mean-level personality were found, mainly demonstrating negative effects of variability for those with a less adaptive personality profile (cf. variability as a ‘curse’), while showing positive effects of variability for those with a more adaptive trait profile (cf. variability as a ‘blessing’). Importantly, however, additional analyses provided little evidence for associations across type of rater source. These findings contribute to the field of I-O psychology by highlighting that perceptions of within-person personality variability may impact performance evaluations beyond personality traits, although its desirability seems to depend on individuals’ personality trait level. Implications and limitations are discussed.

Filling gaps in the nomological networks for dominance and affiliation by examining self-informant agreement on momentary interpersonal behavior

“…One study found self-informant agreement on average AA-rated affiliative behavior between members of romantic couples was comparable to the magnitude of agreement on cross-sectional measures of trait affiliation (Pusch et al, 2019). In contrast, three AA studies of Big Five personality states found no self-informant agreement on average AA state agreeableness despite its conceptual and empirical overlap with communal behavior and despite self-informant agreement on cross-sectional measures of agreeableness (Abrahams et al, under review; Breil et al, 2021; Fleeson & Law, 2015). These latter studies did however find moderate self-informant agreement on AA average state extraversion perhaps because it manifests in more observable behaviors than agreeableness.…”

“…Furthermore, examining associations between interpersonal functioning and self- and informant-perceptions of variability would indicate the extent to which subjective or socially consensual manifestations of variability account for these effects and shed light on potential mechanisms underlying them. One study examined correlations between self- and informant reports of Big Five personality state variability measured by AA and found there was no alignment in perceptions of variability (Abrahams et al, under review). This study focused on teachers and supervisor perceptions, however, and people may act less variably in the workplace compared to in personal relationships (due to either opportunity or intentional concealment), which in turn could reduce alignment in their perceptions.…”