frrson mthud Dlfl Vol. 12. so. 3. pp. ::I-231. 1991 0191.8869 91 53.00 +O.OO

F'nntcd m Grea[ Bntam. All nghts reserved Copynghc c 1991 Pcrg;imon Press pit

PERSONALITY, VOCATIONAL INTEREST, AND COGNITIVE PREDICTORS OF MANAGERIAL JOB

PERFORMANCE AND SATISFACTION

IAN R. GELLATLY, SAS~PO V. PAUNONEN.* JOHN P. MEIZR. DOUGLAS N. JACKSON and RICHARD D. GOFFIX

Department of Psychology, The Umversity of Western Ontario. London, Ontario. Canada N6A 5C2

(Received 9 Juiy 1990)

Summary-We evaluated the extent to which measures of personality. vocational interests. and cognitive ability (verbal and numerical aptitude) predicted on-the-job performance and satisfaction for a sample of first-line managers. The validities of these predictors were evaluated against several performance criteria. such as effectiveness in training and managing unit personnel. and against a measure of promotability. Our results suggested that managerial effectiveness can bc predicted by cognitive ability. personality. and vocational interest measures but that the cognitive and noncognitive predictors were related to difTerent aspects of performance. Moreover. the results show that personalily and vocational mtcrcst mcasurcs predict variance in some criteria not accounted for by cognitive ability predictors. The importance of using multiple criteria ;md of mcasurinp those individual ditrerences that are conceptually relevant IO on-the-job performance is discussed.

INTRODUCTION

Predicting managerial job pcrformancc and satisfaction can be a dillicult problem due, in part, to the fact that managerial positions arc usually hctcrogcneous with respect to the duties or functions performed. Furthermore, the required knowlcdgc, skills, aptitudes, and other characteristics may vary markedly across difTcrcnt levels of management (Cascio, 1987). Whereas research on managerial sclcction has been inclined towards describing managerial functions, ICSS attention has been given to the situational and individual difference variables that predict managerial effective- ness. This research focus requires redirection because, without a clear understanding of the predictors of job performance. managerial selection and promotion programs may be misguided (Landy, 1985).

In one of the few studies of managers and managerial effectiveness, Campbell, Dunnette. Lawler and Weick (1970) identified cognitive and noncognitive predictors as important determinants of managerial success. These authors concluded that “proficiency in executive and managerial jobs have been most effectively indicated by tests of intellectual ability, perceptual accuracy, and personality or interests” (p. 129). The role of noncognitive predictors such as personality and vocational interest measures, however, has been seriously challenged in a selection context (c.g. Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Schmitt, Gooding, Noe & Kirsch, 1984). At the heart of this controversy is the question of whether personality and vocational interest measures are as criterion valid across situations and settings as are measures of general cognitive ability.

There is strong empirical support that tests of intellectual or cognitive ability (e.g. verbal ability) accurately predict work behaviour across a wide variety of jobs and situations (e.g. Ghiselli, 1973; Schmidt, Hunter & Pearlman, 1981). Across all jobs, Hunter and Hunter (1984) estimated the average criterion validity of general cognitive ability tests, corrected for sampling error, criterion unreliability, and range restriction, to be around 0.54 for a training success criterion and 0.45 for a job proficiency criterion. Unfortunately, attempts to validate personality and vocational interest measures have not fared as well.

Reviews of validation research involving personality measures have produced conflicting findings. Two early reviews by Ghiselli and Barthol (1953) and Ghiselli (1966) found that across a variety of occupational groups mean predictive validities of personality measure ranged from 0.14 to 0.36 and 0.21 to 0.46, respectively, when the measured traits were judged to be relevant

‘To whom all correspondence should be addressed.

-71 me_ IAS R.GELLATLY PI al.

for the job in question. In both reviews the predicted criteria was some measure of job proficiency

(e.g. production records, supervisory ratings). More recently, Schmitt et al. (1984) conducted a

meta-analysis of validation studies of personality measures published in the Journal of Applied

PsrdologF and Personnel Psychology between the years of 1964 and 1981. The average validity

coefficient across all studies and situations, corrected for differences in sample size (sampling error).

was a rather modest 0.21 for a performance rating criterion.

In another review. Guion and Gottier (1965) concluded that “taken as a whole there is no

generalizable evidence that personality measures can be recommended as good or practical tools

for employee selection” (p. 159). Despite a number of methodological difficulties with the research

reviewed and with the review itself (see Rothstein, 1983). Guion and Gottier’s article continues to

be widely cited as evidence that personality measures have little validity and utility in a selection

context. Guion and Gottier did, however. note that custom-built or home-made measures

demonstrated better predictive validity, on average, than the standardized inventories (e.g. MMPI).

One reason why personality measures have not been shown consistently to predict job behaviours

is that the measured traits are often mismatched with the performance criteria (Jackson, 1988). This

results when the relations between traits and job behaviours are poorly understood. or when

predictor variables are selected without any rationale. Matching individual difference variables and

job bchaviours requires the development of (or reference to) a conceptual or theoretical framework.

Development of this framework can be facilitated through the use of a construct-validation strategy

(e.g. Dunncttc. 1963; Guion, 1976). The first step in this process involves a conceptual analysis of

the job in terms of role rcquircmcnts and the rcpcrtory of critical job bchaviours (Jackson, 19X8).

Once homogcncous criterion constructs have been idcntificd and opcrationalixd. individual

dilycrcnccs arc idcntificd that will predict these criterion mcasurcs. Psychological theory might help

in such an itlcntilication. The final step is to test empirically the hypothcsi/cd relations bctwccn

prctiictor and criterion mcasurcs. The result of this process should bc ;L clcurer understanding of

the predictor and criterion constructs and the relations underlying thcsc constructs.

The prcscnt study was conducted to evaluate the oxtcnt to which individual difrcrcncc measures.

both cognitive and noncognitivc, predict the on-thc-job pcrformancc and satisfaction of first-line

managers. A job analysis of. the first-line (unit) manager position was conducted prior to the study.

Criterion mcasurcs involved supervisor ratings of six performance dimensions. of overall effcctive-

ncss, and of potential for promotion to upper management. It was expcctcd that using multiple

performance criteria would facilitutc our empirical evaluation of the links between individual

difrcrcnccs (c.g. cognitive ability, personality. and vocational interests) and the relevant job

components. An additional purpose of this study was to identify empirically predictors of job

satisfaction in this sample of managers. Measures of personality or interests might be important

in this context. One would expect, for example, that incumbents possessing those personality traits

or interests consistent with job requirements would be more satisfied.

METHOD

Subjrcts rrrirl procrrhtres

Participants in this study were drawn from two management levels in a large food-service

organization. The organization included 27 districts or regions, each of which was supervised by

a district manager. Each district manager was responsible for a number of first-line (unit) managers.

The actual number of unit managers supervised by any district manager varied with the size of

the district or region.

All 27 district managers were mailed performance appraisal instruments as well as materials to

bc distributed IO selected unit managers in their areas. The number of unit managers selected for

this study varied from two to six per district, for a total of Il4. When there were more than six

units in a district, six managers were selected at random for the study in order to keep the district

manager ratings at a workable number. In districts with less than six units, all active unit managers

were invited to participate.

District managers were instructed to complete performance appraisals and to administer a timed

aptitude test to the unit managers. Once completed, each district manager mailed the performance

Noncognitive and cognitive predictors 22 3

appraisals and the aptitude test directly to us. The personality and vocational interest measures were left with the unit managers to be completed and returned to us by mail.

Participation of unit managers in all phases of the study was voluntary and anonymity was assured through the use of code numbers rather than names. Twenty-three district managers (85%) returned the performance appraisals. Sixty-two unit managers (539’0) returned completed personality measures, and 79 managers (69%) completed the verbal and numerical aptitude measures. The average age of the unit managers was 36.6 yr, average tenure with the company was 6.4 yr, and average tenure in the position of unit manager was il.1 yr. The majority were married (63%) and had at least a grade I2 education (65%). Approximately 559/o of the unit managers were male.

Job anal~~sis

A task-based job analysis for the unit manager position was conducted by the host organization prior to this study. This analysis revealed six dimensions of performance important to fulfilling the requirements of the job. Briefly, the position of unit manager required competence in the following areas: (a) customer, client. and public relations (public relations); (b) administration and accounting practices (administration); (c) preparing written reports and verbal communication (communi- cation); (d) training and managing unit personnel (management); (e) following operational policies and proccdurcs (policy); and (f) conducting routine job tasks (routine). In addition to the company analysis, WC asked each of the 27 district managers to rank-order the six performance dimensions. or job components, in terms of their importance for both overall effcctivencss and promotability (I = most important, 6 = least important).

f’c~r.sotttrlit~-. Personality was measured using the Personality Rcscarch Form-E (PRF-E; Jackson, I983a). The PRl:-E is ;t self-report personality invontory that consists of twenty-two I6-itcm scales

(Abascnicnt. Actiicvcmcnt. Afliliation, Aggression, Autonomy, Change. Cognitive Structure. Dcfcntlcncc. Dominance. Endurance. Exhibition, Harmavoidancc. Impulsivity, Nurturance, Order, Play. Scnticncc. Social Recognition, Succorancc. Understanding. Desirability, and Infrequency). Form E vvas designed for USC with a wide array of populations and is especially useful outside of a college environment.

l’ocutiotrd itr/m,s/.s. Vocational interests were measured by the Career Directions Inventory (CDI; Jackson. 1986). The CDI identifies areas of greater or lesser interest in a wide variety of occupations, and should therefore be rclatcd to a person’s satisfaction with a particular career path. The CDI is intended for use with a general population and consists of fifteen IO-item basic interest scales (Administration, Art, Clerical, Food Service Industrial Arts, Health Service, Outdoors, Personal Service, Sales, Science and Technology, Teaching/Social Service, Writing, Assertive, Persuasive, and Systematic).

Cogtriliw rrhilic~~. Verbal and numerical aptitude were measured using the Personnel Assessment

Form (PAF). The PAF is a speeded test that consists of two 35-item scales, one related to quantitative aptitude and the other to general information. Due to the experimental nature of the P.4F. information regarding its psychometric properties are unavailable. Construction of the form, however, followed the procedure used by Jackson to construct the Multidimensional Aptitude Battery (MAR; Jackson, 1983b). The PAF’s two scales are intended to reprrsent roughly parallel measures of the MAB’s Arithmetic scale and Information scale.

Prrji,rtttatrce. District managers were asked to provide ratings of unit managers on the six performance dimensions (public relations, administration, communication, management, policy, and routine) as well as on overall effectiveness and promotability to the position of district manager. Ratings wcrc made on IOO-point scales, ranging from 0 to 100, where a rating of 50 was tabelled ‘average’ for unit managers in the company. District managers placed a slash through a line to retlect the relative effectiveness of each unit manager for each performance dimension.

Job satisjacliotz. Satisfaction was measured in this study using the index of Organizational Reactions (IOR: Smith, 1976). The IOR is a popular measure of job satisfaction that evaluates employee satisfaction with eight different facets of work: supervision, company identification, kind of work, amount of work, co-workers, physical work conditions, financial rewards, and career

‘?-l __ IAS R. GELLATL~ tit ui

future. Responses to the 42 items comprising this measure were made on 5-point ratings scales in

the present study. In light of findings by Goffin and Jackson (1988). regarding the factor structure

of the IOR. a composite total score (37 items) was used to estimate overall satisfaction.

RESULTS

Coefficient r reliability for the CD1 and PRF scales ranged from 0.67 to 0.91 and 0.50 to 0.91.

respectively. Moreover. coefficient r for the two PAF scales uere O.S9 (verbal) and 0.87 (numerical).

The reliability of the performance ratings could not be calculated because single-item ratings were

used and unit managers were not rated by more than one district manager. Note. however. that

King. Hunter, and Schmidt (1950) suggest that 0.60 is an upper-bound estimate of the interrater

reliability of performance ratings. The coeticient I reliability for the IOR (total score) was 0.S9.

In order to simplify the data. an attempt was first made to identify homogeneous personality

and interest factors in the sample of unit managers. and then to assess whether these factors or

‘types’ were differentially associated with the performance and satisfaction criteria. Note that our

purpose here was to simplify the data rather than to make population inferences about factor

structure.

The PRF scale scores of the unit managers (n = 62) were correlated. and the resultant 71 x ?I

correlation matrix (the Infrequency scale not included) was submitted to a principal components

factor analysis with a varimax rotation. Six personality factors with cigcnvalucs > I.0 uccountcd

for 68.3% of the tot31 variance in the prolilc intcrcorrclation matrix. The PRF scale loadings on

the six personality factors, which WC labcllcd as Impulsive, r\ccommclcl~lting and helpful, Sociable.

Enjoys routine. Self-reliant. and Ilard-working arc prcscntcd in Table I. Table 2 dcscribcd the

salient charxtcristics of the six personality ‘types’ idcntificd in this sample of unit managers.

The I5 C‘DI basic intorcst scale scores for the unit managers 01 = 61) wcrc corrclatcd and

submittcd to a principal components factory analysis with a varimax rotation. The resulting live

intcrcst factors. which accounted for 7 I .3 ‘% of the total variance, arc prcscntcd in Table 3. Thu

salient tcaturcs of the five intcrcst factors, labcllcd Administration, Social scrvico, Outdoors,

Creativity. and Scicncc, arc doscribcd in Table 4.

Our primary intcrcsts wcrc (a) to dctcrminc whcthcr personality. vocational intcrcst. and

cognitive ability predictors were diKcrcntially associated with the pcrformancc and satisfaction

cri tcria. and (b) to examine whether the personality and vocational intcrcst mcasurcs prcdictcd

PII PIII PIV PV PVI

Impulxlwy (Xl) - IZ OX -IX -13 13

Order ( -X0) -II 02 -21 01 17

CqgllllW \Ir”s,“rc (-76) -In - 0-I -?I -13 - I6

Ah.wmcnI 25 (XI) -13 03 I6 -0-I

Dci4cncc -24 (-75) -02 ?? 17 ox

hggrcwm 05 (-6X) -IS -02 33 - 0’)

Nurlur.lncc -25 (65) 34 - 06 -01 OX

At~ilu~wn - IO 2’) 1’6) -17 04 -02

Erhihllwn II - 3.4 (67) - 09 21 00

Pl.ly 37 ?I lhhl -II -17 - xl

Dc\nhdl~y -so I7 (h(j) - IO -07 ?H

Unllcr>LNldmg -IY -03 -01 c -87) -nfI 09

SCllllCllCC -I? ?? 21 (-6X) -II -43

(‘h.mgc 01 IS 33 (-6-l) 31 - 0 I

SUCC0r:lllCC I II -07 03 -12 (-75) - ?!I

Aulonomy 05 _ ?I -02 -05 (741 -0X

DlXlllllJflCC - 50 - ?) ‘S -13 (541 OS

tlJrm.lvoIdJncc -09 00 - 2s .l7 ( - 53) -07

S0Cl.d rccopnlllo” -22 -0’) x -?O -01 C-751

ElldllKLnCe -13 02 35 -20 IX (54)

Achxrcmen~ - IO - I3 JO -33 31 (49)

Pcrccnl \drl.J”CC ‘0 6 I5 9 I I.3 x9 65 0.0

Declrndk I” fxfor lo.xlmg\ h.r\c been omtltcd. Exh scale’s highest loading IS in parcnthcwx Factor labels.

PI (Impulw\c). PII (:\ccommodating and helpful). PIIL (Sociable). PIV (Envoys roul~nel. PV (Self-

rcl~.m!). and PVI (Hmhwrkmg).

SoncognItive and cognitive predictors

TJblc 2. Saltent charactcrtstlcs of the ZIX pcrsonahty factors

F;lClOr Sahcnt characterlstxs

PI Impulwr. IS ~mpuls~\c u~d tends to act wrhout dchbcratlon: unmhlbmzd. often dcscrlbcd

as dlsordcrly and lackmg in orgamzauon. ,s not particularly prcax or mcthodul.

PII .Acrommoclarmp und hripfi/- corwdercd humble or meek. self-blaming. xlf-crrtal.

obedient. IS not defenslrc uhcn cnuclzcd. accepts blame rcadlly: does not cn~oy combat

and argument. passt\e. not easel>-angered. hkes to nurture or comfort others or do

favourr.

Plll .%cruhlr. IS scuable. makes effort to um and nuntan fnendshlps. enjoys bang the

ccntrc of attcntnon. IS cntertunm_n: takes part I” games .md other smuxmrnts. en,o)s

Jokes. and IS pldyful. presents self I” a sowIt> dewrable manner.

PIV &n/qs rourmr- 15 not mtellectu~lly curious. does not seek knowledge; doec not en,oy

phyvcdl sensations. does not apprecutc bauty: does not hhe new and dtfferent

erpenenccs. en,oyr rout,ne.

PV Sell-rrliunr: does not xek r)mpathy or rea\rurance from olherr. IS independent and

powblk a loner. doe\ not hke rew!ctlons. IS consrdercd domtrunt. .tttempls 10 control

others.en%tronment. en,o)s exx(mg and adventurous dctI\lties.

PVI Hml-ntwkm. I, nor concerned Hlth reputation and uhat others thlnh: works lone

hours. 1s penwent and hard-workwig: mJ,nta,nr high rtandJrdc. end dttempts difficult

UXllS.

Tahlc 1. SAcnt charactcrwlcs of the five mterc>t fwztors

FLKtor Sahcnt chxxtrrirtu

V( .A~bmmsrrofwn cn~o)> organlang the tinanual or day-to-day opcrauons of a buwnr or

Inst!lutlon. rupcrv~ng the wtlwtn of others. plannmg work rhcdulcr. and malntainlny

records. cnjoyr work which involves influcncmg. adwang. counxll~ng. gt~d!ng.

mouvoting. or dlrcctlng the ilctlwtxx of others. prcfcn working uluations in which It 1s

.appropwtc to a~crt authority over others. and m uhlch clox supcrwrion ih

unncccssar~; doe* not enjoy mtcrwtmg wth others and prOwdIng public serwccs

lWO)W&! pUSO!X,l cO”tXt. VII Soual wn-rrr: cnjo)$ mslruct~ng people in Ic;lmmg new things or hclpmg them ‘iolvc

problems; does nor cnloy makmg or rcpavmg things usmg machlncry. or by hand. is

mtcrcrtcd I” hclpmg IO prcvcnt or curt dlsca\cs lhrough laboratory work. or by

attcndlng 10 [he mcdul nccd5 of mdwduah dlrcctly: does not hkc to be mvolrcd m the

prep;lrwon. rcrvmg. or sclhny of food producrs: docs not enjoy office work of a

SyStcmatK nalurc. InvOlvlng routme dutlcs. VIII Ou~~bors. cn~oys workmy outdoors. espcc~ally m agrxulturc wth animals a&or pl~nrx

1s not mccrcrtcd m selling mcrchandiw or xrvices. which may involve ;t tcchmcal

undcrstandmg of cqwpment. demonstration. and bang influential with orhcra. VIV Crzofr~~f~~: cn~oys etthcr crcawe or technical wnting: hkcly to have broad mtcrcsls: has

an apprcaat~on for Ihe arts. and cn~oys pxl~ipal~on I” them (E g. pcrformlng on rlagc.

or crcacmg YISU~I artwork). vv Scwnrr~ enjoys workmg wtth abstract Ideas. scientific cqu~pmcnt. and mathcmatlcal logic

and rcaron~np to 5olw pracucal problems; prefers jobs that involve routine: dlxllkcs

frequent changer m schedule and sltuat!ons requirmg quick decirlons.

IAS R. GELLATLY er al.

Soncoenlti\e and cognltlre predictors 7’7 --

variance in the performance and satisfaction criteria not accounted for by the cognitive ability

predictors. Table 5 displays the simple correlations among the predictor and criterion measures. Due to a

listwise deletion of missing data, the sample size was reduced to 59. These data show that personality types PI, PII. PIV and PV were related to different performance and satisfaction criteria. Unit managers with personalities resembling a PI (Impulsive) trait configuration reported lower levels ofjob satisfaction. Unit managers with personalities resembling a PI1 (Accommodating and helpful) trait configuration were rated higher on customer. client, and public relations. and on administration and accounting practices. Not surprisingly. unit managers most similar to a PIV (Enjoys routine) trait configuration were rated as more effective in conducting routine job tasks, and reported higher levels of job satisfaction. Unit managers with a PV (Self-reliant) personality were rated as more proticient on preparing written reports and verbal communications, on training and managing unit personnel. on following operational policies and procedures. on overall effectiveness. and were viewed as more promotable to the position of district manager.

Like the personality factors, the data show that a number of vocational interest factors (VI. VII. VIII, and VIV) were related to the performance and satisfaction criteria. Unit managers most similar to a 1’1 (administration) interest configuration were rated as more proficient on following operational politics and procedures, on conducting routine job tasks. on overall effectiveness. and were rated more promotable to the position of district manager. Unit managers with a VII (Social service) intcrcst pattern were rated as more proficient on administration and accounting practices. on verbal and written communication. and wcrc cons&-cd more promotable. Unit managers with an interest pattern resembling that of VIII (Outdoors) wcrc rated higher on training and managing unit pcrsonncl. and were rated more promotable to the position of district manager. I:in;llly, unit managers most similar to a WV (Creativity) intcrcst configuration rcportcd lower job satisfaction.

As expcctcd on the basis of previous rcscarch (c.g. Hunter s( Hunter, 1983; Schmidt et (:I., 1981). Table 5 sholvs that mcasurcs of verbal and numerical aptitude predict supervisory ratings of pcrformancc and promotability. Unit managers with higher verbal ability wcrc rated higher on preparing written reports and vorbnl communication. on training and managing unit pcrsonncl, and wcrc rated as more promotable. Unit managers with higher numerical ability wcrc rated higher on preparing written reports and verbal communication, and wcrqrated as more promotable.

In order to evaluate whether the noncognitive measures predicted variance, not accounted for by cognitive ability, partial correlations wrrc computed bctwecn the personality and vocational intcrcst predictors and the criteria controlling for verbal and numerical aptitude. All correlations reported in Table 6 are part correlations with verbal and numerical aptitude partiallcd from the predictor. Collectively. these data show that personality and vocational interests arc related to performance and satisfaction criteria when the efrects of cognitive ability arc controlled.

Table 6 also reveals the results of the ranking exercise performed by the 27 district managers. The avcragc ranks of the six performance dimensions (job components) are listed in column I in terms of their perceived importance for overall effectiveness as unit managers. Note that the district managers ranked public relations as the most important and communication as the least important

Per~o”.lllry factor5 I”Lerc\l rLictors RJnk . ..--_-- _~____..__~__

I 2 CrllCW” PI PI1 Pill PIV PV PVI VI VII VIII VIV VV

I I Puhllc rcl~~~on> 03 23 19 II I8 01 I? 17 OY 02 -0: , _ 4 Rouunc 01 -03 -10 26’ IO -01 21’ -IX II -I5 IS

3 2 Maugcmcnt 05 03 -15 ox 26’ -I4 07 -02 II’ -06 17

J 3 POIIC) 06 IO -07 22 ?? OS 23 -0-l -05 -07 04

5 5 -\~“ll”:w.~llo” -OS 27’ -02 I6 07 13 13 26 -05 -05 II

6 6 Communtcdlion -17 I4 -03 18 16 -II I? 2X’ II-! -02 01

o\cr.d rLlll”g -10 I’

-I? 1;

-07 20 I?’ 00 24 -06 20 -06 IO

Promotdhllltj 09 -01 34” -07 ?H’ I9 20 -I? I7

S~lld.KW” -_ 19’ 04 -03 22 I9 07 IX -09 -I? -29. -06

‘P < 0 OS. “P < 0 01. Dcumdr h.lvc been omlucd. All corrclat~ons arc put correlations wilh verbal and numcrlcal ap~~~udc part~~llcd from

the prcd~ctor Rdnkr of the UT pcrform~ncc dlmcnslons arc hsted m the first IWO columns in terms of judged m~portancc for overall

ctTccl~~cneu ISW) ~“d for promotabtlity (xcond). Pcrronahty factor lables: PI (Impul~ivt). PI1 (Accommodatmg and helpful). Plll

~S~:l;lblc). PIV (Envoys roul~nc). PV (Self-rcllan0. and PVI (Hard-working). Voca~w~nal intercom factor labels. VI (Admln!\tratlon). VII

(Socul tcr\!ccl. VI11 (Outdoors), VIV (Crcatlr~ty). and VV (Sacncc).

xi IAS R. GELLATL~ or al.

performance dimension activity, Rankings listed in column 2 reflect the ordering of the six job

components in terms of perceived importance for promotability to district manager. Although there

are some differences in the middle ranks. public relations is again rated as most important and

communication is least important. It is noteworthy that personality measures predicted variance.

in ratings of overall effectiveness and promotability. not accounted for by the cognitive predictors.

Moreover. personality predicted those job components (conducting routine job tasks. and

management and training of unit personnel) that were judged to be important aspects of the job.

Another test for incremental validity was conducted using a series of hierarchical regression

analyses. A separate regression analysis was conducted for each criterion measure that demon-

strated a signilicant part correlation with either a personality or an interest factor (see Table 6).

The independent variables were entered in a forward stepwise manner. with both cognitive ability

measures entered first. In steps two and three, those personality and interest factors with significant

part correlations with the particular criterion measure were entered, respectively. Adding voca-

tional interests after personality permitted an evaluation of whether vocational interests predicted

variance in the criteria not accounted for by cognitive ability and personality. The results of these

analyses are presented in Table 7.

The results of the regression analyses provide evidence that personality and vocational interest

factors contribute significantly to the prediction of performance and satisfaction criteria after

the elyccts of cognitive ability have been removed. For instance, personality improves the pre-

diction of the following performance dimensions: (a) administration and accounting practices

(Pll: Accommodating and helpful). (b) conducting routine job tasks (PIV: Enjoys routine). and

(c) managcrncnt anti training of unit pcrsonncl, overall ctfcctivcncss, and promotability (PV:

Sclf-rcli:lnt). Vocational intcrcst factors accounted for additional variance in verbal and written

coniniunications (VII: Social scrvicc) and job satisfaction (VIV: Creativity). Personality was also

rclatcd to job satisfaction (PI: Impulsive). This latter tinding suggests that unit managers

char;lctcri/cd as impulsive. uninhibited, and often disorderly tend to bc more dissatislicd with their

prcscnt position. Collcctivcly. thcsc findings concur with previous rcscarch that shows a link

0015

0.0x4

0. I37

o.nxn

0.144

0.20 I

0 046

0.1 I5

0.132

0.201

0.004

0.107

0.123

0 224

0.239

0.009

0.09-l

0 IS?

0.648

0.047

0 075

0.097

0 047

0.056

0264

0.0-u

0019

0 033

0.901

0014

0.025

0.010

0.312

0 787

0.026

0.060

0.0 I5 <I

O.ObY 4.14

0 053 3.2Y

n 0x0 2.44

n 064 J II

0.057 3.82

0 OJ6 I .36

0.069 4.26

a.132 4 25

D 069 4.7x

0004 <I

0.103 6.1X

0.123 3.93

0.101 7 I5

0015 I 0-l

0.009 <I

o.oas 5.21

0.05a 3.70

Noncogmtive and cogmtive predictors 229

between personality and reported job satisfaction (e.g. Cawsey. Reed & Reddon, 1982; James and

Jones, 1980; Ronan, 1970).

DISCUSSION

In this study, measures of cognitive ability. personality, and vocational interests were found to

be associated with the job performance and job satisfaction of a sample of first-line managers. As

expected, cognitive ability predictors were associated with proficiency on preparing written reports

and verbal communications, on training and managing unit personnel, and on ratings of

promotability. With the effects of cognitive ability controlled, however, personality predictors were

associated with proficiency on conducting routine job tasks, on managing and training unit

personnel, on administration and accounting procedures. on overall effectiveness, on ratings of

promotability. and on self-reported job satisfaction. Similarly. vocational interests were associated

with performance criteria when cognitive ability was controlled. but the majority of these effects,

however, did not reach traditional levels of significance when personality was also controlled.

Interestingly, personality and vocational interests were related to job components not predicted by

cognitive ability. Moreover, job satisfaction was related with noncognitive rather than the cognitive

predictors.

The findings of this study are consistent with research showing meaningful relations between

personality and work behaviour. For example. Stahl (1983) found that need for achievement and

need for power are linked with managerial motivation. In an assessment centre context, Bray and

Howard (1983) demonstrated that a number of personality traits were associated with managers’

need for advancement and inner work standards. both of which are bclicved to be indices of

successful pcrformancc in managcmcnt. Taylor. Locke. Lee, and Gist (1984) have linked Type A

bchaviour with the productivity of university faculty. Thcsc authors demonstrated that individuals

displaying high levels of Type A bchaviour pattern tcndcd to perform bcttcr at work, both with

rcspcct to quantity and quality of pcrformanco. Rushton, Murray and Paunoncn (1983) have

similarly reported associations bctwcen personality traits and clTcctivcncss in university teaching

and rcscarch.

In spite of suggestions to the contrary (e.g. Guion & Gottier, 1965; Schmitt 6.1 (11.. 1984). this

study shows that personality and vocational interest measures can be valid predictors of managerial

pcrformancc, and may have considerable potential for the selection of first-line managers. This is

especially true since personality and interest measures predict criterion variance not accounted for

by cognitive ability. and they predict job components not predicted by the cognitive ability predictors.

Our findings add to a growing body of research which demonstrates the incremental validity of

noncognitive predictors. For example. in a recent analysis of entry-level patient contact positions

in a national health care organization, Rosse, Miller and Barnes (1989) found that personality

measures accounted for performance variance beyond that accounted for by tests of perceptual

(cognitive) ability. Moreover, in a sample of accountants, Day and Silverman (1989) demonstrated

that personality variables predicted variance in performance criteria not accounted for by tests of

cognitive ability. Collectively, this research supports Guion’s (1987) suggestion that noncognitive

predictors (e.g. personality, vocational interests) may account “for some of the residual criterion

variance not touched by cognitive abilities” (p. 201).

This study also highlights the importance of evaluating job performance from a multivariate

perspective. and of exploring the links between individual differences and job components. It was

interesting that the cognitive and noncognitive variables predicted performance dimensions with

which they were logically related. Moreover, the noncognitive variables best predicted those

performance dimensions judged by the district managers to be most important for overall

performance and promotability. Using multidimensional criteria allowed us to observe the

differential effects of cognitive and noncognitive predictors.

Comparison of cognitive and noncognitive variables should be made with caution, however, in

view of the fact that the psychometric properties of the cognitive ability measure used in this study

are not well known. For example. it is possible (if not probable) that the range of cognitive ability

scores for our sample of managers is considerably less than that of the general population as a

result of the selection process. This restriction of range would attenuate the correlations involving

‘30 IAS R. GELLATLY et al.

cognitive ability. This does not take away from the fact, however. that even for this select group. personality and vocational interests are predictive of managerial success.

On the basis of reviews that address the relation between personality measures and job performance (e.g. Guion & Gottier, 1965). it is evident many studies use measures of personality traits that are not conceptually relevant to the job in question (Rothstein, 1983). To be sure. the process of matching traits and job behaviours is no easy task given both the number and complexity

of personality traits (and their measures) and the variety of behaviours obsemable across jobs (Jackson, 1988). A growing body of research now suggests that judgement methods are efficacious in identifying trait-job behaviour matches. given a careful analysis of the role and behavioural requirements for a particular job.

Recent research suggests that people do, in fact. have a consensual and veridical understanding of the relations between individual differences and work behaviours. For instance. professional interviewers concur ivith regard to the typical personality traits of such diverse occupational groups as carpenters. architects, athletic coaches. and secretaries (Jackson. Peacock & Holden. 1982). Paunonen and Jackson (1987). found that judges’ perceptions of relevant traits substantially corresponded with objectively measured traits for personnel managers and computer programmers. Lay observers and professional interviewers alike are reasonably good at inferring the relevant personality traits for some occupations and such inferences can have considcrablc impact on subscqucnt decisions regarding the suitability of a job applicant (e.g. Jackson. Peacock & Smith. 1980; Rothstcin & Jackson, IYSO). Finally. in a study that cmploycd a construct-validation strategy to examine the relation bctwecn personality and job performance for Navy recruiters, Pulakos, fsorman and Hough (19118) dcmonstratcd that 89”/0 of the empirical predictor-criterion correlation pattcrris could bc prcdictcd by cxpcrt judges.

f’rcdicting man:~gcrial pcrformanoc remains ;I tricky and complex problem faced by crnployers. This is cspccially true given the diversity of role rcquircmcnts and bchaviours across dilfcrcnt lcvcls of managcmcnt. This observation only highlights the ncod to consider pcrformancc from a multivariatc pcrspcctivc and to cvaluatc carefully individual difrcrcnccs that predict prolicicncy in each criterion domain. To the cxtcnt that the findings of the prcscnt study gcncraliLc beyond the prcscnt situation. the role of noncognitivc predictors may complcmcnt the USC of cognitive

prciliclors for some managerial positions.

Ghiwlli. E. E. ( 1966). 7‘11r rct/il~r~, II/’ ctcc~rp[rrwr~/ qti/utle ;e.yf:s: New York: Wiley. Ghisclli. E. E. (lY73). The \;llidity of apritudc IL’SIS in personnel seleclion. Prr.vonw/ f’~~~c/rdo.~~~. 26. 461 477. Ghwlli. E. E. & Barrhol, R. P. (lY53). Th s >alidlry of pcrsonall[y invenrorles in rhr selection of employees. Irwmcrl of

.-l~~/~liCll P.>> l-hrllrlg,l~. .i 7. I ,Y 20. Gotlin. K. II. & Jackson. D. N. (198s). Th c slruu1uraI validtry of rhc index of organizational rexlwns. ,Mu//ilaritrre

B~~lrrrl~irlrld Ht~wlrrdr. 2.1, 3’7 347.

Jackson. D. $. (I 9H-h). P~TwI~~I~ ~~~wI~c/I /om ntmuul. Port Huron. Mich.: Research Psychologists Press.

Jackson. D. S. (I 9RJh). .~llrlrrrlir,rr,r.rio,rul upfrf~& h~trer,t nru~rrrcrl. Port Huron. Mloh.: Rcsarch Psychologists

Press. Jackson. D. N ( 1986). Corwr rlrrc*ctiwr.s imcntor.r nwwu/ London, Ontario: Rcscurch Psychologists Press. Jackson. D. 9. (198X). Personality and job pcrformancc: A conceptual analysis. Paper prcscntcd at the annual meeting of

rhc Canadian Psychological Association. Montreal. June.

Soncogmu\e and cognitive predictors ‘31

Jackson. D. N., Peacock. A. C. & Holden. R. F. (1982). Professional interviewers’ trait inferential structures for diverse occupatIona groups. Organixrlonal Behmtour and Human Performance. 29. l-20.

Jackson. D. S.. Peacock. A. C. & Smith. J. P. (1980). Impressions of personality m the employment interview. Journal of Personaliry and Social Pr.rchoiog.r. 39. 294-307.

James. L. R. & Jones. A. P. (1980). Perceived job characteristics and job satisfaction: An examination of reciprocal

causation. Personnel Psychology. 33. 97-135. King. L. M.. Hunter. J. E. & Schmidt. F. L. (1980). Halo m a multidimewonal forced-choice performance evaluation scale.

Journal of Applied PsFcholog>,. 65. 507-5 16. Landy, F. J. (1985). PsJchologJ of work behoctor (3rd edn). Homewood. III.: Dorsey Press. Paunonen. 5. V. & Jackson. D. N. (1987). Accuracy of interviews and students in idenrlfying the personality characteristics

of personnel managers and computer programmers. Journal of C’ocarional Behaciour. 31. 26-36. Pulakos. E. D.. Borman. W. C. & Hough. L. Xl. (1985). Test validation for scientific understanding: Two demonstrations

of an approach to studymg predictor-criterion linkages. Personnel Psychology. 4/. 703-716. Ronan. W. W. (1970). Indiwdual and situational variables relating to job satisfaction. Journal of .4pplied Psychology.

54. I-31. Rosse. 1. Ci.. Miller. H. E. & Barnes. L. K. (1989). Hiring for personality and ability: The case of service orientation. Paper

presented at the 97th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association. New Orleans, August. Rothstein. M. (1983). Predicting job performance criteria from interview-based impressions of personality. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation. The University of Western Ontario. Rothstein. M. Sr Jackson. D.N. (1980). Decision making in the employment interview.: An experimental approach. Journal

q/‘ Applied Ps,vchology. 65. 27 I 283. Rushton. J. P.. Murray, H. G. & Paunonen. S. V. (1953). Personality. research creativity. and teaching effectiveness in

university professors. S[,lcrrrurrrt,rri~s. 1 93-I 16. Schmidt, F. L.. Hunter. J. E. & Pearlman. K. (1981). Task differences as moderators of aptitude test validity in selection:

A red herring. Jorrmtrl o/ .App/wd Pr~~cholq~.. 66. I66- 185. Schmitt. N.. Gooding. R. 2.. Not, R. A. & Klrsch. M. (IV%!). Mcta-analyses of validity studws published between 1964

and 1982 and the investigation of study characteristics. Purorvwl P~t~hrA~,~,r. -77. 407-412. Smith. F. J ( 1976). Index of organt/ational rcac1Ions (IOR). JS.4.S ctrfolqy of .wh~ft~f doc~unrcvrt.~ in p.r~chr~/oy~. 6. 1265.

Stahl. M. J. (1083). Aohwcmcnt. powr and managerial motlvatmn: Sclcct~ng managerial talent with the job chow exercise. P,wOIIwI I’v,vr~h~llil,~,r. .I(,. 775 7x0