prior related work experience and job performance: role of personality

Prior Related Work Experience and JobPerformance: Role of personality

Nishant Uppal*, Sushanta Kumar Mishra** andNeharika Vohra***

*Indian Institute of Management, Prabandh Nagar, Off Sitapur Road, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 226 013, [email protected]; [email protected]**Indian Institute of Management, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India***Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India

In contrast to the general notion, recent studies presented a negative or insignificant rela-tionship between prior related work experience (PRWE) and job performance (JP) and sug-gestively attributed the theoretically inconsistent results to individual factors. Using asample of 688 sales persons in the insurance industry, the present study found support forthe positive relationship between PRWE and JP. Further, the study found the moderationeffect of personality factors on the above relationship. Implication of the study to the prac-titioners and the academia is discussed.

1. Introduction

Rich economic growth and increased domestic entre-preneurship (World Bank Group, 2012) led by

Indian economic reforms have presented uniquechallenges for the organizations such as enhanced em-ployee mobility and unstable employment relationship(ASSOCHAM1, 2012). Therefore, employee’s total workexperience is highly likely to be accumulation of experi-ences from multiple organizations. Hiring of experiencedemployees by an organization is a natural outcome ofsuch career patterns (Dokko, Wilk, & Rothbard, 2009).However, whether the work experience converts intoemployee’s performance is a matter of debate.

Studies investigating the relationship between priorrelated work experience (PRWE) and job performance(JP) are broadly of two types: single-organization andmulti-organization studies. Single-organization studies,apart from being contextual, present a positive (Carr,Pearson, Vest, & Boyar, 2006; Dragoni, Oh, Vankatwyk,& Tesluk, 2011; Hunter & Thatcher, 2007), insignificant(Castilla, 2005), as well as a negative (Dokko et al.,2009) relationship between PRWE and JP. Theoristshave attributed these variances to different individualfactors (Castilla, 2005; Dokko et al., 2009; Morrison &Brantner, 1992).

Multi-organization studies (Finkelstein, 2003; Giniger,Dispenzieri, & Eisenberg, 1983; McDaniel, Schmidt, &Hunter, 1988; Motowidlo, Packard, & Manning, 1986;Quinones, Ford, & Teachout, 1995) mostly found pos-itive relationship between PRWE and JP. However,multi-organization studies seem to be constrained bythe following issues. PRWE can be occupational or/andindustry-specific (Dokko et al., 2009), whereas multi-organization studies have taken either one of them ortotal work experience as a study variable posing diffi-culty in generalizing the results. PRWE being a criticalselection criterion warrants empirical ratification aboutits relationship with JP in current organization. Thepresent work is a multi-organization study attempting toresolve this theoretical ambiguity.

2. Literature review

2.1. Prior related work experience and jobperformance

Work experience is occupational and industry-specificrather than firm-specific and leads to improvements inemployees’ job-related outcomes (Neal, 1995; Parent,2000). It also leads to employees’ stability, serious-ness in work attitude, mature judgment, and reduced

bs_b

s_ba

nner

International Journal of Selection and Assessment Volume 22 Number 1 March 2014

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd,9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St., Malden, MA, 02148, USA

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

negative work behaviors such as absenteeism (Ginigeret al., 1983). Human capital theory suggests that differ-ences in JP reflect differences in human capital endow-ments and factors such as the amount of time investedin particular occupation or industry (Ang, Slaughter, &Ng, 2002).

Knowledge and skills gained from PRWE improve em-ployees’ productivity (Rynes, Orlitzky, & Bretz, 1997),self-efficacy beliefs (Morrison & Brantner, 1992), re-sponse time to work-related challenges (Beyer &Hannah, 2002; Salthouse, 2000), and hence leads to en-hanced JP (Borman, Hanson, Oppler, Pulakos, & White,1993; Dokko et al., 2009).

Employees under stressful job conditions direct theirattention to familiar and well-learned tasks, which en-hance employees’ capacity to channel arousal (Hunter &Thatcher, 2007). In fact, PRWE does not only reducehostile behavior and depression (Motowidlo et al., 1986)but also relates negatively to stressors such as work–family conflict (Byron, 2005).

In addition, value congruence depends on the amountand relatedness of PRWE with the present work(O’Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991). Theory suggeststhat value congruence reflects positive organizationaloutcomes such as job satisfaction, commitment, and in-volvement (Cable & Judge, 1996).

Experienced employees possess internalized beliefs,values, and job expectations unique to their occupa-tions, which results in effective socialization (Carr et al.,2006; Fernandez, Castilla, & Moore, 2000). It is alsonoted that employees with experience assess theirweaknesses more realistically and surround people whocan compensate for those weaknesses to improve theirJP (Hausman, Crow, & Sperry, 2000). In light of theabove theoretical evidences and contrary to recent find-ings (Castilla, 2005; Dokko et al., 2009), we posit a pos-itive relationship between PRWE and JP.

Hypothesis 1: Prior related work experience positivelyrelates to job performance.

Although we expect a positive relationship betweenPRWE and JP, extant literature makes it complex. Forexample, Dokko et al. (2009) found that in the absenceof transfer of relevant knowledge and skills, PRWE re-lates negatively with JP. However, they neglected otherbenefits associated with PRWE. According to them,call center executives (sample of their study) carry ri-gidities caused by the scripts and schemas from theirprevious similar employments. However, theory sug-gests that the job of a call center executive is highlyrepetitive and routinized (Sprigg & Jackson, 2006), andin such jobs, scripts and schemas should instead facil-itate JP (Gioia & Poole, 1984). Probably, individual dif-ferences in acquisition of scripts and schemas (Gioia &Poole, 1984) may have caused theoretically inconsist-ent findings. In fact, Dokko et al. (2009) demonstrated

adaptability, an individual factor, that influenced the re-lationship between PRWE and JP. Adaptability is em-ployees’ willingness to adjust their behaviors accordingto changed environment, which enhances JP (Pulakos,Arad, Donovan, & Plamondon, 2000). Researchers havefound strong relationship between various individualpersonality characteristics and adaptability (Fugate &Kinicki, 2008; LePine, Colquitt, & Erez, 2000; Pulakoset al., 2000).

In a study with a similar sample, Castilla (2005) ob-served nonsignificant long-term relationship betweenPRWE and JP. According to Castilla, the job of callcenter executives is closely monitored that causes dis-satisfaction among experienced and autonomy-seekingemployees. Second, employees’ sociability is based onindividual differences and is affected by their tenure inthe current organization. Further, individual factors,such as self-efficacy beliefs (Morrison & Brantner, 1992)and learning abilities (Borman et al., 1993; Neal, 1995),are also expected to affect the relationship betweenPRWE and JP. In fact, in an academic setting, certain per-sonality traits are found to have significant interactioneffects on the relationship between prior experienceand academic performance (Uppal & Mishra, 2013).These inconsistencies clearly indicate significance of indi-vidual characteristics and highlight the need for furtherinvestigation.

According to holistic learning theory (Yang, 2004), in-dividual personality constructs like intellect, emotions,body impulse (or desire), intuition, and imagination to-gether are required for effective learning and perform-ance. In the current paper, we have tried to explore theeffect of individual differences on the relationship be-tween PRWE and JP. The individual differences are cap-tured through Big Five personality traits, that is,openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraver-sion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. These Big Fivepersonality traits have emerged from decades of re-search and have been celebrated for their ability to sim-plify an otherwise overwhelming number of traits anddefinitions of personality (John, 1990; McCrae et al.,2008) and to predict behavioral outcomes (Barrick &Mount, 1991; Mount, Barrick, Scullen, & Rounds, 2005).The following sections highlight attributes of variouspersonality traits that are common to factors associatedwith PRWE and are expected to influence its relation-ship with JP.

2.2. Openness to experience

Individuals high on openness display tolerance whenconfronted with difficult job situations, are curious tofind innovative solutions, and are less vulnerable tostressful work environments (Burke & Witt, 2002).Open individuals regularly occupy themselves in self-

40 Nishant Uppal, Sushanta Kumar Mishra and Neharika Vohra

International Journal of Selection and AssessmentVolume 22 Number 1 March 2014

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

monitoring and assessment activities that help in quicklearning (Busato, Prins, Elshout, & Hamaker, 1999).

Openness has been found to be positively associatedwith adaptability (LePine et al., 2000; Pulakos et al.,2000). When employees move across organizationalboundaries, they do not carry systems and processesunique to their previous organizations (Groysberg,Nanda, & Nohria, 2004), which may have helped them inJP in those organizations. Open individuals do not getstifled by traditions and social conformity norms (Judge,Thoresen, Pucik, & Welbourne, 1999), view workplacetransitions positively, and socialize effectively (Wanberg& Banas, 2000). Thus, their loss due to change in organ-ization should get compensated easily.

Hypothesis 2: The relationship between prior relatedwork experience and job performance is stronger foremployees with higher openness to experience, com-pared to the employees with lower openness toexperience.

2.3. Conscientiousness

McCrae and Costa (2003) suggested that conscientious-ness relates to achievement motivation, which signific-antly enhances individuals’ adaptability (Pulakos et al.,2000). Conscientiousness is found to be negatively asso-ciated with absenteeism as it reflects self-discipline anddutifulness (Colquit & Simmering, 1998).

Conscientiousness is a personal characteristic thatprovides time efficiency, organizing skills, active problemsolving, and hence lower vulnerability to work-relatedstress (Wayne, Musisca, & Fleeson, 2004). It reflects theextent to which a person is careful and responsible(Barrick & Mount, 1991). It controls negative effects ofvarious work-related stressors as people high at con-scientiousness are able to control their behavior despitehaving negative work experiences (Colbert, Mount,Harter, Witt, & Barrick, 2004). When conscientious in-dividuals undergo work experiences that generate neg-ative emotions, they refrain from engaging in retaliatorycounterproductive behavior than a less conscientious in-dividual (Ilies, Scott, & Judge, 2006). Therefore, the rateof transfer of negative attitudes from PRWE (Dokko etal., 2009) should be lesser for conscientious employees.

Hypothesis 3: The relationship between prior relatedwork experience and job performance is stronger foremployees with higher conscientiousness, compared tothe employees with lower conscientiousness.

2.4. Extraversion

Hogan (1982) explained extraversion as having twobroad components; sociability (sociable, exhibitionist, andexpressive) and ambitiousness (initiative, ambition, and

impetuous). Individuals high at extraversion exhibit highsociability that helps them seek support from colleaguesto solve complex task problems (Argyle & Lu, 1990).They develop effective interpersonal contacts, which re-sults in easy in-group membership (King & Broyles,1997). Being ‘universal communicators’ (Gardner, 1962),exhibitionist, and expressive, they are less hesitant inutilizing previous experiences to accomplish current jobrequirements.

People having extraversion traits exhibit controlledemotionality and self-efficacy at workplace (Watson &Clark, 1997). Theory suggests that extraversion is posit-ively related to adaptability (Rottinghaus, Day, &Borgen, 2005). Extraversion sometimes works as a pro-tective factor against sensitivity to threats arising out ofjob demands and internal competition, resulting in re-duced counterproductive reactions to work stressors(Robinson, Meier, & Vargas, 2005).

Hypothesis 4: The relationship between prior relatedwork experience and job performance is stronger foremployees with higher extraversion, compared to theemployees with lower extraversion.

2.5. Agreeableness

Individuals high at agreeableness are compliant, engagein positive social exchanges (Finch, Okun, Pool, &Ruehlman, 1999; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1997), and ex-hibit channeled emotional arousal (Buss & Plomin,1984). Finch et al. (1999) suggested that agreeablenessnegatively affects depression and stress arising due tochallenges in work environment through social support.Additionally, empirical findings suggest that agreeable-ness is associated positively with adaptability (Ward,Leong, & Low, 2004).

Mount, Barrick, and Stewart (1998) found that agree-ableness can lead to higher JP because the trait facilitateseffective interpersonal communication in the workplacethat is critical specifically in novel task situations (Marks,Zaccaro, & Mathieu, 2000). Many complex tasks inorganizations require interpersonal communication, di-rect confrontation, and conflict resolution, which can besolved by knowledge and skills gained from PRWE (Gist,Stevens, & Baveta, 1991) with support of the trait –agreeableness.

Hypothesis 5: The relationship between prior relatedwork experience and job performance is stronger foremployees with higher agreeableness, compared to theemployees with lower agreeableness.

2.6. Neuroticism

Neuroticism comprises anxiety, anger, hostility, depres-sion, impulsiveness, and vulnerability (McCrae & Costa,

Work Experience, Person, or Both 41

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd International Journal of Selection and AssessmentVolume 22 Number 1 March 2014

2003). Neuroticism has been shown to exert astrong negative effect on psychological and socio-cultural adaptation and has been associated with de-pression and adjustment problems (Rottinghaus et al.,2005; Ward et al., 2004). Tett, Jackson, and Rothstein(1991) found that lack of adaptation characteristic ofneuroticism may be because of skill deficit and itsnegative relationship with proficiency in domain-specificareas.

Neurotic individuals lack performance motivation(Judge & Ilies, 2002) and self-efficacy (Judge, Erez,Bono, & Thoresen, 2002). Neuroticism is very similarto negative affectivity (Watson & Clark, 1992) that sig-nifies the use of ineffective coping techniques to stress-ful situations (Eaton & Bradley, 2008). For example,individuals low at negative affectivity will be lesser re-active to workplace stressors such as workplace in-civility and interpersonal conflict (Penney & Spector,2005).

Hypothesis 6: The relationship between prior relatedwork experience and job performance is weaker foremployees with higher neuroticism, compared to theemployees with lower neuroticism.

The proposed theoretical model is presented inFigure 1.

3. Methodology

3.1. Sample

Sample (n = 688) for the study comes from private lifeinsurance organizations operating in New Delhi, thecapital of India. Indian life insurance sector was liberal-ized in 1999. Since then, 24 private organizations havebeen licensed, out of which 13 are operational forover a decade, having more than 85% of the marketshare while the rest are relatively new (IRDA2, 2012).Eleven of the 13 organizations agreed to participate inthe study. It was representative of population as theyare major business contributors (with more than 75%

market share), ranked among the top in terms of over-all market share, and represent maximum employeestrength of the sector (IRDA, 2012). The sector suitedour study for two reasons. One, the sector has pro-vided a lot of career opportunities and because ofits specific human resource requirements, prior workexperience is respected by recruiters, inducing highintra-sector employee mobility (ASSOCHAM, 2012).Second, during initial stages of data collection, whileone of the authors visited human resource officials ofthe organizations for seeking permission to share em-ployee database, the officials reported that front-linesales employees accounted for maximum employeemovement. Hence, we restricted our sample to front-line sales employees of the organizations in insuranceindustry.

Human resources officials of each firm on our behalfcommunicated with employees about our visit to theirrespective workplaces and asked them to participate inthe study. Employees who agreed to participate wererequested to report at a common area (e.g. trainingroom, pantry) near their work stations. We created atemporal separation of measurement as a proceduralmethod to control common source variance (Podsakoff,MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003) and requested re-spondents to report twice in the designated commonarea (mostly before and after lunch breaks). They werefirst briefed about the study and were informed abouttheir choice to discontinue involvement from the studyanytime during the survey. We also promised to main-tain confidentiality about their responses to surveyquestionnaires.

Out of 712 respondents who initially consented, 688reported for both parts. Overall, average response ratefrom each of the organization was 83%. Average age ofrespondents was 29.6 years. About 57.3% of the re-spondents were male and 64.1% were married. About74% of them were having post graduation or above, andall respondents were at least under graduation as theireducational qualification. English was their primary lan-guage during school and undergraduate education. Re-

Prior related work experience

Job performance

Extraversion Neuroticism

ConscientiousnessOpenness Agreeableness

Figure 1. Proposed model for study.




spondents gave written consent for survey and accessto their database from human resource department ofrespective organizations.

3.2. Measures

3.2.1. Prior Related Work ExperienceWork experience is measured in terms of number ofmonths invested in various jobs by an employee(Giniger et al., 1983; McDaniel et al., 1988; Quinoneset al., 1995; Rynes et al., 1997). Researchers conceptu-alized PRWE as the accumulation of prior industryexperience (PIE), for example, software or phar-maceutical (Dokko et al., 2009), and (POE), forexample, teaching or nursing (Carr et al., 2006).Therefore, work experience consists of four dimen-sions: total work experience, firm experience (monthsspent in current organizations), PIE, and POE. PRWE inthis study consists of both PIE and POE.

Researchers (Borman et al., 1993; Carr et al., 2006;Morrison & Brantner, 1992; Motowidlo et al., 1986;Plouffe & Egoire, 2011; Valcour & Tolbert, 2003) com-monly agree that work experience can be bestcaptured through employees’ self-reports on simplestatements and assumed reliability of those statementsto be as high as 1.0 (McDaniel et al., 1988, p. 328).Based on the literature, we carefully articulated fourseparate statements3 representing each of the fourconcrete singular dimensions (Rossiter, 2002, p. 309)of PRWE in consultation with academic experts andsenior professionals from the industry. Further, 15–18respondents on random basis from each organizationwere enquired after they had filled out the question-naires about any difficulties in responding to state-ments relating to work experience and no onereported any difficulty. Their responses were thenmatched with personnel database of the respective or-ganizations and the statements were found to be cor-rectly interpreted and answered.

The time (months) spent either in the sales occupa-tion or in the (insurance) industry is PRWE. Higher ofthese two has been taken into the model as PRWE.The higher of these two represents the length of workexperience related to employee’s current occupation(or industry). The time spent in the current organiza-tion is firm experience. Since we are interested toknow the effects of PRWE, that is, experience gainedbefore joining the current organization, the firm exper-ience is controlled in the model. Time spent in theindustry other than insurance and time spent in theprofessions other than sales is considered as unrelatedexperience. The value of unrelated experience hasbeen obtained by subtracting the higher value of prioroccupational or PIE from the total work experienceand is controlled in the model.

3.2.2. Job performanceJP is captured through annual performance ratings ofthe employees from the personnel data of the organ-izations in which they are currently working. Theorganizations under study utilize performance evalua-tion system that considers multiple aspects of em-ployee performance and achievements. The immediatesupervisors evaluate employees on various dimensionsand finally the personnel departments assign an overallannual performance rating. The organizations’ person-nel departments record only an overall annual per-formance rating and not the subdimensions used bysupervisors to rate the employees. Annual perfor-mance rating is suggested to be suitable for comparingemployees’ performance as standard measure (Becker,Connolly, & Slaughter, 2010; Dokko et al., 2009). Studyof the key performance indicators of sales employeesof each organization revealed similar subdimensionsand procedures used (e.g., number of insurance pol-icies sold and amount of premium obtained) to arriveat annual performance rating, which made performanceratings of employees across organizations comparable.Similarity in performance measurement systems amongthe organizations could be due to ‘mimetic isomorph-ism’ (Haveman, 1993, p. 3). Each organization used dif-ferent tags for annual performance rating, for example,organizations used scale of ‘1’ (outstanding) to ‘5’(poor) or ‘5’ (outstanding) to ‘1’ (poor) or ‘4’ (out-standing) to ‘0’ (poor); however, each of them used5-point rating scale. We reverse/recoded as per thedata requirement and used 5 (outstanding) and 1(poor), which is in the case of 5 out of 11 participatingorganizations.

3.2.3. Personality traitsThere are various valid scales available to capture BigFive personality traits, making selection difficult. There-fore, in order to analyze contextual usefulness (Block,1995), we conducted pilot tests to check reliability. Ourfirst two pilot tests with 10-item scale (Gosling,Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003) and 44–item scale (John &Srivastava, 1999), respectively, did not reveal suitable re-liability results (Cronbach’s α < .6). Tables 1 and 2 pre-sent means, standard deviations, reliability scores, andzero-order correlations among Big Five personalitytraits for both scales. However, third pilot test with 50-item scale (Goldberg, 1999) was found to be reliable(Cronbach’s α > .7) in case of all five traits. Respondents(pilot study 1: n = 93; pilot study 2: n = 55; pilot study 3:n = 42) for the pilot study were sales employees fromdifferent organizations including life insurance sectoroutside the sampling frame. Following the existing prac-tice, a stimulus statement, that is, ‘whether or not thestatement described their personality’ was used tomeasure different personality traits. Respondents rated



on a Likert scale ranging from 5 (being very accurate) to1 (being very inaccurate) consisting of items such as ‘I amlife of the party’.

3.2.4. Control variableWe controlled demographic variables like age(Salthouse, 2000), gender, educational qualification(Dokko et al., 2009), and marital status (Witt & Carlson,2006) due to their probable interference with the pro-posed theoretical model. We controlled unrelated ex-perience as our interest was to check the effect of onlyPRWE on JP. We also controlled firm experience due toits effect on hypothesized relationship (Castilla, 2005;Dokko et al., 2009). We did not control whether theemployee was a referral or not, as in our sample,average firm experience was 36.31 months and it issuggested to be long enough to lose its effect on em-ployees’ performance (Castilla, 2005).

We also controlled job complexity using job dia-gnostic survey (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; as prescribedby Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000) due to its suggestedmoderation effect on the relationship between PRWEand JP (Quinones et al., 1995). Job complexity is definedas employees’ perceptions about the job, hence may dif-fer for employees in the same occupation (Hackman &Oldham, 1980). Job diagnostic survey requires respon-dents to indicate on 14 statements whether the state-ments are accurate or inaccurate description of theirjob. For example, ‘The job requires me to use a numberof complex or higher levels of skills’. Respondents wereexpected to report on a 7-point Likert scale, 1 being

very inaccurate and 7 being very accurate. Job complexitymeasured through job diagnostic survey was found reli-able (Cronbach’s α > .7). Additionally, adequate fit (thecomparative fit index was .90 and the root mean squareerror of approximation was .05) was observed. The 14individual item responses were summated to form asingle job complexity score (Judge et al., 2000).

4. Results

Table 3 presents the means, standard deviations, reliabil-ity scores, and zero-order correlations among all thestudy variables. We conducted multicollinearity dia-gnoses for the sample. The variance inflator factor (VIF)coefficients were well below the commonly agreedthreshold (VIF < 4).

After checking for conformity of data to regressionassumptions, PRWE (higher values of PIE and POE) asindependent variable and JP as dependent variable weremodeled. Gender, age, marital status, education quali-fication, scores on job diagnostic survey, firm experi-ence, and unrelated experience were controlled whileregressing. All of the variables were standardized(Dawson & Richter, 2006, p. 919) before regression.The regression analysis is provided in Table 4. Resultsindicated a significant relation between PRWE and JP(ΔF = 4.34, β = .22, ΔR2 = .02, p < .05). Therefore, Hy-pothesis 1 was supported.

We used hierarchical multiple regression analysis totest the hypotheses pertaining to moderation effects.Control variables in Step 1, predictor variable (PRWE)

Table 1. The means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations among personality traits from the 10-item scale (Goslinget al., 2003)

No. Items Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

1 Openness 3.78 .58 (.46)2 Conscientiousness 3.69 .64 .20* (.39)3 Extraversion 3.58 .57 .23* −.08* (.45)4 Agreeableness 3.93 .61 .02** .16* .02* (.36)5 Neuroticism 1.18 .62 −.19* −.05* −.08* −.24** (.56)

Note: * p < .05. ** p < .01. n = 93. The numbers in parentheses corresponding to the variables indicate the reliability estimates (Cronbach’s α� ) for therespective variables.

Table 2. The means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations among personality traits from the 44-item scale (John &Srivastava, 1999)

No. Items Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

1 Openness 3.61 .47 (.55)2 Conscientiousness 3.91 .60 .24* (.52)3 Extraversion 3.46 .60 .35** .22* (.53)4 Agreeableness 3.87 .59 .32** .40** .26* (.63)5 Neuroticism 2.12 .57 −.12** −.24* −.25* −.31** (.61)

Note: * p < .05. ** p < .01. n = 55. The numbers in parentheses corresponding to the variables indicate the reliability estimates (Cronbach’s α� ) for therespective variables.




in Step 2, interaction variable (Big Five personality traits)in Step 3, followed by the two-way interaction terms inStep 4 (e.g., PRWE×Openness) were entered. Resultsare presented in Table 2. The interaction of PRWE withopenness (ΔF = 6.53, β = .21, ΔR2 = .02, p < .01), withconscientiousness (ΔF = 12.32, β = .24, ΔR2 = .04,p < .01), and with neuroticism (ΔF = 14.01, β = −.16,ΔR2 = .04, p < .01) explained significant incremental vari-ance in JP over and above the control variables andPRWE. Therefore, Hypotheses 2, 3, and 6 were sup-ported. Data indicate that the relationship betweenPRWE and JP is different for high and low values ofopenness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism. Similartests were conducted for extraversion and agreeable-ness, which did not reveal significant interaction effect.The data thus did not support Hypotheses 4 and 5.

We used the method prescribed by Aiken and West(1991) to graphically describe interaction behavior ofvariables. The graph depicting the relationship betweenPRWE and JP for high and low values of openness, con-scientiousness, and neuroticism is provided in Figure 2.

5. Discussion

In contrast to recent explications (Castilla, 2005; Dokkoet al., 2009; Finkelstein, 2003; Groysberg et al., 2004),we hypothesized a positive relationship between PRWEand JP. Further, in order to resolve extant theoreticalambiguity, we posited that Big Five personality traits canmoderate the relationship.

As hypothesized, we found a significant positive rela-tionship between PRWE and JP over and above controlvariables such as firm experience, unrelated experience,and job complexity. It indicates that past research find-ings that demonstrated negative relationship are prob-ably situation-specific.

Further, we tried to explore the effect of individualdifferences on the hypothesized relationship. We broad-ened the theory by studying comprehensive andinclusive individual factor – Big Five personality traits.Contrary to our prognostication, data did not supportmoderation effect of extraversion and agreeableness.This could be due to the following reasons. Contextu-ally, both extraversion and agreeableness seem to beunimportant personality traits. Private organizationswere recently (since the year 1999) allowed to operatein life insurance sector in India, prior to which mere onegovernment organization (IRDA, 2012) enjoyed mon-opoly. The private organizations initially faced tremend-ous resistance by customers on fund security issueswhen compared with government owned life insuranceorganization. Employees with high agreeableness, beingless assertive (Judge & Ilies, 2002) and in consistentquest to be socially desirable (Stober, 2001) even withrich work experience, would have found difficulties inT

able

3.T

hem

eans

,sta

ndar

dde

viat

ions

,and

zero

-ord

erco

rrel

atio

nsam

ong

allt

hest

udy

vari

able

s

No.

Item

sM

ean

SD1

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

16

1Jo

bpe

rfor

man

ce3.

431.

232

Gen

der

1.40

.49

.06

3M

arita

lsta

tus

1.64

.48

.13

.14

4Ed

ucat

ion

qual

ifica

tion

2.43

.57

.09*

.08

.14*

5A

ge36

0.66

53.5

9.0

2*.1

3.1

6*.0

5*6

JDS*

59.7

27.

46.0

2−.

01.0

8.0

3.0

7*(.

76)

7Fi

rmex

peri

ence

34.6

323

.66

.02*

.03

.13*

.13*

.41*

*.0

78

PIE

44.9

822

.06

.18*

*.0

8.1

4**

.12*

*.5

2**

.06

.20*

*9

POE

54.8

132

.60

.19*

*.0

5.2

0**

.10*

.37*

*.0

3.1

6**

.42*

*10

Tot

alw

ork

expe

rien

ce75

.82

47.5

7.1

2**

.12

.20*

*.1

4**

.76*

*.0

8.4

2**

.63*

*.4

1**

11U

nrel

ated

expe

rien

ce23

.12

14.1

1.0

4*.0

9.0

7*.0

2*.3

6**

.11

−.03

−.06

−.02

.06*

12O

penn

ess

3.93

.62

.11*

*.0

8.0

6.1

4**

.03*

.02

.05

.06

.12

.16

. 12

(.82

)13

Con

scie

ntio

usne

ss3.

67.5

1.1

4**

.03

.05

.13*

.07

.07

.05

.05

.03

.02

.05

.11*

*(.

76)

14Ex

trav

ersi

on3.

80.6

2.0

9*.1

1.1

.16*

*.0

8*−.

05.0

9.1

7.1

0.1

2.0

8.1

6**

.07*

(.79

)15

Agr

eeab

lene

ss3.

20.5

8.1

2*−.

05−.

02−.

09*

.02

.11

−.02

−.20

−.13

−.01

.01

.17*

*.1

8**

.15*

*(.

84)

16N

euro

ticis

m2.

20.4

8−.

13*

.05

−.21

−.12

*−.

03*

−.23

−.01

−.01

−.02

.01

−.01

−.16

*−.

1 2*

−.17

*−.

16*

(.78

)

Not

e:*

p<

.05.

**p

<.0

1.n

=68

8.T

henu

mbe

rsin

pare

nthe

ses

corr

espo

ndin

gto

the

vari

able

sin

dica

teth

ere

liabi

lity

estim

ates

(Cro

nbac

h’s

α)fo

rth

ere

spec

tive

vari

able

s.A

gean

dex

peri

ence

valu

esar

ein

term

sof

num

ber

ofm

onth

s.JD

S,sc

ores

ofjo

bdi

agno

stic

surv

eyre

pres

entin

gjo

bco

mpl

exity

;PIE

,pri

orin

dust

ryex

peri

ence

;PO

E,pr

ior

occu

patio

nale

xper

ienc

e.



handling the resistance. Life insurance sector in India hasbeen liberalized and grown tremendously in the past fewyears. However, it still operates under strict govern-ment regulation. Experimental and excitement-seeking(McCrae & Costa, 2003) attitude of extravert em-ployees may feel inhibited by such business environmentand may not utilize knowledge and skills gained fromprevious work experience.

Openness was found to strengthen the relationshipbetween PRWE and JP. We believe open employeesbeing adept and secure (Funder, Furr, & Colvin, 2000)suit the requirements of the dynamic industry and thesecharacteristics should add to sincerity and stability(Giniger et al., 1983) gained with experience.

Conscientiousness was also found to strengthen therelationship between PRWE and JP. Conscientious em-ployees find effective ways of preserving learning fromtheir past experiences and make routine revisit to thoselearning (Comber & Nixon, 2006). Additionally, conser-vation of resource theory suggests that when one re-source comes in heavy demand, other similar resourcescome for support. For example, according to ‘pressurecooker effect’ family support operates as a resistanceresource for aging (Hobfoll & Wells, 1998, p. 131). Con-scientiousness, as performance aiding resource, depletesfaster when emotional exhaustion is experienced (Witt,Andrews, & Carlson, 2004). PRWE being negatively re-lated to emotional exhaustion (Deery, Iverson, & Walsh,2002) is expected to operate as a resistance resourcefor personal resource like conscientiousness. Therefore,conscientiousness and PRWE should collaboratively addto JP.

Data revealed that for neurotic employees, positiverelationship between PRWE and JP was weaker. Weconceive the following reasons for the result. Individualshigh at neuroticism are generally anxious, hostile, anddepressed (McCrae & Costa, 2003). These character-istics can significantly induce threats, leading to stress(Bolger & Eckenrode, 1991) especially in demandingbusiness environment and hence causing underutilizationof personal resources such as knowledge and skillsgained from PRWE (Hobfoll, 1989).

6. Implications

Our study has practical and theoretical implications.Organizations continue to recruit on the basis of thenumber of years of related work experience. Ourstudy ascertains the benefits; however, it suggests thatrecruiters should not ignore individual factors espe-cially openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticismthat interfere with future performance. Therefore,we recommend personality analysis while hiring newemployees.

Theorist until the last few years believed that PRWEhas generic positive effects on JP. Later researchersstarted questioning the idea (Finkelstein, 2003;Groysberg et al., 2004) and explicated possible negativerelationship. Factors like adaptability (Dokko et al.,2009) and sociability (Castilla, 2005) were found to in-terfere with the relationship. In contrast to their sugges-tions, our findings maintain positive effects of PRWE.We also add that although relationship between PRWE

Table 4. Hierarchical regression for the moderating effects of openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism on the relationship be-tween prior related work experience and job performance

β R2 ΔR2

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Gender .02 .03Marital status .02Educational qualification .01Age .02JDS .15**Firm Experience .14*Unrelated experience .06Prior related work experience (PRWE) (H1) .22* .04 .02*Openness .03 .05 .00Conscientiousness .18** .07 .03**Extraversion .04 .05 .00Agreeableness .12* .04 .01Neuroticism −.15* .05 .01**PRWE × Openness (H2) .21* .06 .02**PRWE × Conscientiousness (H3) .24** .10 .04**PRWE × Extraversion (H4) .17 .05 .01PRWE × Agreeableness (H5) .06 .06 .02PRWE × Neuroticism (H6) −.16** .08 .04**

Note: *p < .05. ** p < .01. The standardized regression coefficients are presented.




and JP is positive, the strength of the relationship de-pends on more encompassing personality factors.

7. Limitations and directions for futureresearch

The present study has certain acknowledgeable limita-tions. To obtain statistically comparable data specificallyon work experience and performance, we focused onone industry, limiting the generalizability. Findings maybe sensitive to the industries, for example, similar studyin unregulated business environment might produce dif-ferent results. In a recent study, situational factor suchas perceived organizational support has been found tomoderate the relationship between prior work experi-ence and academic performance (Uppal & Mishra, 2013).However, in the present study, we focused on individual

factors only. Future research may attend to these issues.We restricted our sample to sales employees of organi-zations. In the future, researchers may consider otherjobs as well. However, after controlling for job charac-teristics, we posit that results may still remain un-changed. We took tenure as indicator for workexperience, which probably is insufficient for employeeswith higher levels of work experience specifically inmanagerial roles (Dragoni et al., 2011). Since our sampleconsisted of nonmanagerial and less experienced (lessthan 7 years) employees, tenure-based measurementsuited the study.

Another limitation of the study is the use of annualperformance ratings as proxy of JP. Researchers (Siders,George, & Dharwadkar, 2001) suspect ‘halo’ effect onperformance ratings and doubt its predictability (Hunter& Thatcher, 2007). However, there are various reasonswhy annual performance ratings suited for the currentstudy. We included 11 organizations in the presentstudy and the use of annual performance ratings pro-vided the comparable performance indicator acrossorganizations within an isomorphic industry. Also,performance ratings served as inclusive measure incorp-orating otherwise distinct task-related information(Becker et al., 2010; Dokko et al., 2009). Although per-formance rating is a subjective measure, it does notdepend on single source, for example, supervisorevaluations in case of large organizations. In the presentstudy, the performance ratings, though assigned by thesupervisors, are finalized based on a standardized pro-cess involving 360 degree feedbacks and the inputs fromthe personnel department.

Validity of personality tests has been subjected to as-sessment situations (e.g., Galic, Jerneic, & Kovacic, 2012;Morgeson et al., 2007). However, with significantlyhigh reliabilities (Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran, & Judge,2007), multiple pilot tests and adequate exploratory andconfirmatory factor analysis results (Salgado, Moscoso,& Berges, 2013; Stark, Chernyshenko, Chan, Lee, &Drasgow, 2001), situation-based bias is not much of aconcern for the present study. Also, in response toMorgeson et al. (2007), Tett and Christiansen (2007)confirmed the usability of personality tests irrespectiveof assessment situations. Further in a qualitative study,Konig, Merz, and Trauffer (2012) indicated inconclusive-ness of research findings questioning validity issues re-lated to situation biases. We believe that due to theawareness of the participants about the purpose of thestudy and absolute volunteerism, faking tendencies maynot have triggered (Bipp, 2010).

8. Conclusion

The present study contributes to the field of work ex-perience and JP. We found portability of work experi-


Ann

ual p

erfo

rman

ce r

atin

gsA

nnua

l per

form

ance

rat

ings

Ann

ual p

erfo

rman

ce r

atin

gsHigh opennessLow openness

High conscientiousnessLow conscientiousness

High NeuroticismLow Neuroticism



(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 2. (a) Job performance regressed on prior related work experi-ence (PRWE) for low and high scores on openness. (b) Job perfor-mance regressed on PRWE for low and high scores onconscientiousness. (c) Job performance regressed on PRWE for lowand high scores on neuroticism.



ence within industry as well as occupation to currentwork settings. The study offers practitioners a compre-hensive model by including personality factors. Wefound moderation effects of personality factors such asopenness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism on therelationship.

In a similar context such as the evolving insurance in-dustry in India, practitioners internationally may witnesslarge employee movement. Quality of recruitment mayinfluence long-term performance of individuals and con-sequently that of the organizations. The present studyhighlights the benefits of hiring experienced employeesand emphasizes the role of prospective employees’ per-sonality during recruitment.

Notes

1. ASSOCHAM: The Associated Chambers of Commerceand Industry of India is Indian trade associations acting asan interface between industry, government, and other rel-evant stakeholders on policy issues and initiatives.

2. Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority is anautonomous statuary body formed by the Government ofIndia.

3. Firm experience: How long (months) have you beenworking with the current organization?

Prior industry experience: How long (month) have you been inthe insurance industry?Prior occupational experience: How long (months) have youbeen in the current occupation?Total work experience: How much of the total work experi-ence (months) you have?

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testingand interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ang, S., Slaughter, S., & Ng, K. Y. (2002). Human capital and in-stitutional determinants of information technology compen-sation: Modeling multilevel and cross-level interactions.Management Science, 48, 1427–1445.

Argyle, M., & Lu, L. (1990). The happiness of extraverts. Per-sonality and Individual Differences, 11, 1011–1017.

ASSOCHAM. (2012). ASSOCHAM study. Available at http://www.assocham.org/prels/printnews.php?id=2633 (accessed12 September 2012).

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personalitydimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. PersonnelPsychology, 44, 1–26.

Becker, W. J., Connolly, T., & Slaughter, J. E. (2010). The effectof job offer timing on offer acceptance, performance, andturnover. Personnel Psychology, 63, 223–241.

Beyer, J. M., & Hannah, D. R. (2002). Building on the past: En-acting established personal identities in a new work setting.Organization Science, 13, 636–652.

Bipp, T. (2010). What do people want from their jobs? The bigfive, core self-evaluations and work motivation. Journal of Se-lection and Assessment, 18, 28–39.

Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approachto personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187–215.

Bolger, N., & Eckenrode, J. (1991). Social relationships, per-sonality, and anxiety during a major stressful event. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 61, 440–449.

Borman, W. C., Hanson, M. A., Oppler, S. H., Pulakos, E. D., &White, L. A. (1993). Role of early supervisory experience insupervisor performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,443–449.

Burke, L. A., & Witt, L. A. (2002). Moderators of the opennessto experience-performance relationship. Journal of Manager-ial Psychology, 17, 712–721.

Busato, W., Prins, F. J., Elshout, J. J., & Hamaker, C. (1999).The relation between learning styles, the Big Five per-sonality traits, and achievement motivation in highereducation. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 129–140.

Buss, A., & Plomin, R. (1984). Temperament: Early developingpersonality traits. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work-family con-flict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67,169–198.

Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person-organization fit,job choice decisions, and organizational entry. Organiza-tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 294–311.

Carr, J. C., Pearson, A. W., Vest, M. J., & Boyar, S. L. (2006).Prior occupational experience, anticipatory socialization,and employee retention. Journal of Management, 32, 343–359.

Castilla, E. J. (2005). Social networks and employee perform-ance in a call center. American Journal of Sociology, 110,1243–1283.

Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., &Barrick, M. R. (2004). Interactive effects of personality andperceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 599–609.

Colquit, J., & Simmering, M. (1998). Conscientiousness goalorientation and motivation to learn during the learning pro-cess: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,654–665.

Comber, B., & Nixon, H. (2006). The differential recognitionof children’s cultural practices in middle primary literacyclassrooms. Literacy, 40, 127–136.

Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way in-teractions in moderated multiple regression: Developmentand application of a slope difference test. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 91, 917–926.

Deery, S., Iverson, R., & Walsh, J. (2002). Work relationshipsin telephone call centers: Understanding emotional exhaus-tion and employee withdrawal. Journal of Management Stud-ies, 39, 471–496.

Dokko, G., Wilk, S. L., & Rothbard, N. P. (2009). Unpackingprior experience: How career history affects job perform-ance. Organization Science, 20, 51–68.

Dragoni, L., Oh, I., Vankatwyk, P., & Tesluk, P. E. (2011). De-veloping executive leaders: The relative contribution of cog-nitive ability, personality, and the accumulation of workexperience in predicting strategic thinking competency. Per-sonnel Psychology, 64, 829–864.




http://www.assocham.org/prels/printnews.php?id=2633

http://www.assocham.org/prels/printnews.php?id=2633

Eaton, R. J., & Bradley, G. (2008). The role of gender andnegative affectivity in stressor appraisal and coping selec-tion. International Journal of Stress Management, 15, 94–115.

Fernandez, R. M., Castilla, E. J., & Moore, P. (2000). Social cap-ital at work: Networks and employment at a phone center.American Journal of Sociology, 105, 1288–1356.

Finch, J. F., Okun, M. A., Pool, G. J., & Ruehlman, L. S. (1999).A comparison of the influence of conflictual and supportivesocial interactions on psychological distress. Journal of Per-sonality, 67, 581–621.

Finkelstein, S. (2003). Why smart executives fail and what theycan learn from their mistakes. New York: Portfolio.

Fugate, M., & Kinicki, A. J. (2008). A dispositional approach toemployability: Development of a measure and test of implic-ations for member reactions to organizational change.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 503–527.

Funder, D. C., Furr, R., & Colvin, C. (2000). The Riverside be-havioral Q-sort: A tool for the description of social behav-ior. Journal of Personality, 68, 451–489.

Galic, Z., Jerneic, Z., & Kovacic, M. P. (2012). Do applicantsfake their personality questionnaire responses and how suc-cessful are their attempts? A case of military pilot cadet se-lection. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20,229–241.

Gardner, G. H. (1962). Cross cultural communication. Journalof Social Psychology, 58, 241–256.

Giniger, S., Dispenzieri, A., & Eisenberg, J. (1983). Age, experi-ence, and performance on speed and skill jobs in an appliedsetting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 469–475.

Gioia, D. A., & Poole, P. P. (1984). Scripts in organizational be-havior. Academy of Management Review, 9, 449–459.

Gist, M. E., Stevens, C. K., & Bavetta, A. G. (1991). Effects ofself-efficacy and post-training intervention on the acquisitionand maintenance of complex interpersonal skills. PersonnelPsychology, 44, 837–861.

Goldberg, L. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, per-sonality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of sev-eral five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, F. Deary, F.De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Eur-ope (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.

Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann Jr, W. B. (2003). Avery brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Jour-nal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528.

Groysberg, B., Nanda, A., & Nohria, N. (2004). The risky busi-ness of hiring stars. Harvard Business Review, May, 1–11.

Hackman, J., & Oldham, G. (1980). Work redesign. Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hausman, C., Crow, G., & Sperry, D. (2000). Portrait of the‘Ideal principal: Context and self’. NASSP Bulletin, 84, 5–14.

Haveman, H. A. (1993). Follow the leader: Mimetic isomorph-ism and entry into new markets. Administrative Science Quar-terly, 38, 593–627.

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new at-tempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44,513–524.

Hobfoll, S. E., & Wells, J. D. (1998). Conservation of re-sources, stress, and aging: Why do some slide and somespring. In J. Lomranz (Ed.), Handbook of aging and mental

health: An integrative approach (pp. 121–133). New York: Ple-num Press.

Hogan, R. (1982). A socio-analytic theory of personality. NebraskaSymposium on Motivation, 55–89.

Hunter, L. W., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (2007). Feeling the heat:Effects of stress, commitment, and Job experience on jobperformance. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 953–968.

Ilies, R., Scott, B. A., & Judge, T. A. (2006). The interactive ef-fects of personal traits and experienced states on intra-individual patterns of citizenship behavior. Academy ofManagement Journal, 49, 561–575.

IRDA. (2012). IRDA study. Available at http://www.irda.gov.in/ADMINCMS/cms/NormalData_Layout.aspx?page=PageNo129&mid=3.1.9 (accessed 3 February 2012).

John, O. P. (1990). The ‘Big Five’ factor taxonomy: Dimen-sions of personality in the natural language and in ques-tionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality:Theory and research (pp. 66–100). New York: GuilfordPress.

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big-five trait tax-onomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives.In L. A. Pervin & O. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality:Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–139). New York: Guil-ford Press.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality andjob satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics.Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 237–249.

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Aremeasures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, andgeneralized self efficacy indicators of a common core con-struct? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 693–710.

Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality toperformance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 87, 797–807.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M.(1999). Managerial coping with organizational change: A dis-positional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 107–122.

King, L. A., & Broyles, S. J. (1997). Wishes, gender, personality,and well-being. Journal of Personality, 65, 49–76.

Konig, C. J., Merz, A., & Trauffer, N. (2012). What is in applic-ants’ minds when they fill out a personality test? Insightsfrom a qualitative study. International Journal of Selection andAssessment, 20, 442–452.

LePine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability tochanging task context: Effects of general cognitive ability,conscientiousness, and openness to experience. PersonnelPsychology, 53, 563–593.

Marks, M., Zaccaro, S., & Mathieu, J. (2000). Performance im-plications of leader briefings and team-interaction trainingfor team adaptation to novel environments. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 85, 971–986.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2003). Personality in adulthood: Afive-factor theory perspective (2nd ed.) New York: GuilfordPress.

McCrae, R. R., Yamagata, S., Jang, K. L., Riemann, R., Ando, J.,Ono, Y., Angleitner, A., & Spinath, F. M. (2008). Substanceand artifact in the higher-order factors of the big five. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 442–455.



http://www.irda.gov.in/ADMINCMS/cms/NormalData_Layout.aspx?page=PageNo129&mid=3.1.9



McDaniel, A., Schmidt, F., & Hunter, J. (1988). Job experiencecorrelates of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,73, 327–330.

Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. I., Hollenback, J.R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N. (2007). Reconsidering the useof personality tests in personnel selection contexts. Person-nel Psychology, 60, 683–729.

Morrison, R. F., & Brantner, T. M. (1992). What enhances orinhibits learning a new job? A basic career issue. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 77, 926–940.

Motowidlo, S. J., Packard, J. S., & Manning, M. R. (1986). Occu-pational stress: Its causes and consequences for jobperform-ance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 618–629.

Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., Scullen, S. M., & Rounds, J.(2005). Higher-order dimensions of the big five personalitytraits and the big six vocational interest types. Personnel Psy-chology, 58, 447–478.

Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L. (1998). Person-ality predictors of performance in jobs involving interactionwith others. Human Performance, 11, 145–166.

Neal, D. (1995). Industry-specific human capital: Evident fromdisplaced workers. Journal of Labor Economics, 13, 653–677.

O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). Peopleand organizational culture: A profile comparison approachto assessing person-organization fit. Academy of ManagementJournal, 14, 487–516.

Ones, D., & Viswesvaran, C. (1997). Personality determinantsin the prediction of aspects of expatriate job success. In Z.Aycan (Ed.), Expatriate management: Theory and practice (pp.63–92). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T. A.(2007). In support of personality assessment in organiza-tional settings. Personnel Psychology, 60, 995–1027.

Parent, D. (2000). Industry-specific capital and the wage pro-file: Evidence from the national longitudinal survey of youthand the panel study of income dynamics. Journal of Labor Eco-nomics, 18, 306–323.

Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, andcounterproductive work behavior (CWB): The moderatingrole of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior,26, 777–796.

Plouffe, C. R., & Egoire, Y. G. (2011). Intra-organizational em-ployee navigation and socially derived outcomes: Conceptu-alization, validation, and effects on overall performance.Personnel Psychology, 64, 693–738.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P.(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: Acritical review of the literature and recommended remedies.Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E.(2000). Adaptability in the workplace: Development of ataxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 85, 612–624.

Quinones, M. A., Ford, K. J., & Teachout, M. S. (1995). The re-lationship between work experience and job performance:A conceptual and meta-analytical review. Personnel Psycho-logy, 48, 887–910.

Robinson, M. D., Meier, B. P., & Vargas, P. T. (2005). Extraver-sion, threat categorizations, and negative affect: A reaction

time approach to avoidance motivation. Journal of Personality,73, 1397–1436.

Rossiter, J. R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale de-velopment in marketing. International Journal of Research inMarketing, 19, 305–335.

Rottinghaus, P. J., Day, S. X., & Borgen, F. H. (2005). The ca-reer futures inventory: A measure of career-related adapt-ability and optimism. Journal of Career Assessment, 13, 3–24.

Rynes, S. L., Orlitzky, M. O., & Bretz, R. D. (1997). Experi-enced hiring versus college recruiting: Practices and emerg-ing trends. Personnel Psychology, 50, 309–339.

Salgado, J. F., Moscoso, S., & Berges, A. (2013). Conscientious-ness, its facets, and the prediction of job performance rat-ings: Evidence against the narrow measures. InternationalJournal of Selection and Assessment, 21, 74–84.

Salthouse, T. A. (2000). Aging and measures of processingspeed. Biological Psychology, 54, 35–54.

Siders, M. A., George, G., & Dharwadkar, R. (2001). The rela-tionship of internal and external commitment foci to object-ive job performance measures. Academy of ManagementJournal, 44, 570–579.

Sprigg, C. A., & Jackson, P. R. (2006). Call centers as lean ser-vice environments: Job-related strain and the mediating roleof work design. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11,197–212.

Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., Chan, K. Y., Lee, W. C., &Drasgow, F. (2001). Effects of the testing situation on itemresponding: Cause for concern. Journal of Applied Psychology,86, 943–953.

Stober, J. (2001). The social desirability scale-17 (SDS-17):Convergent validity, discriminate validity, and relationshipwith age. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17,222–232.

Tett, R. P., & Christiansen, N. D. (2007). Personality tests atthe crossroads: A response to Morgeson, Campion,Dipboye, Hollenbeck, Murphy, and Schmitt (2007). PersonnelPsychology, 60, 967–993.

Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personalitymeasures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analyticreview. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703–742.

Uppal, N., & Mishra, S. K. (2013). Moderation effects of per-sonality and organizational support on the relationship be-tween prior job experience and academic performanceof management students. Studies in Higher Education,DOI:10.1080/03075079.2013.777411.

Valcour, M., & Tolbert, P. S. (2003). Gender, family and careerin the era of boundarylessness: Determinants and effects ofintra- and inter-organizational mobility. International Journalof Human Resource Management, 14, 768–787.

Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and out-comes of openness to changes in a reorganizing workplace.Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 132–142.

Ward, C., Leong, C., & Low, M. (2004). Personality and so-journer adjustment: An exploration of the big five and thecultural fit proposition. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,35, 137–151.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1992). Affects separable and in-separable: On the hierarchical arrangement of the negativeaffects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 489–505.




Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its pos-itive emotional core. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs(Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 767–793). SanDiego, CA: Academic Press.

Wayne, J. H., Musisca, N., & Fleeson, W. (2004). Consideringthe role of personality in the work-family experience: Rela-tionships of the big five to work-family conflict and enrich-ment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 108–130.

Witt, L. A., Andrews, M., & Carlson, D. (2004). When consci-entiousness isn’t enough: Emotional exhaustion and callvolume performance among call center customer service

representatives. Journal of Management, 30, 149–160.Witt, L. A., & Carlson, D. S. (2006). The work-family interface

and job performance: Moderating effects of conscientious-ness and perceived organizational support. Journal of Occupa-tional Health Psychology, 11, 343–357.

World Bank Group. (2012). World Bank Group study. Availableat http://data.worldbank.org/country/india (accessed 12 Sep-tember 2012).

Yang, B. (2004). Holistic learning theory and implications forhuman resource development. Advances in DevelopingHuman Resources, 6, 241–262.



http://data.worldbank.org/country/india

prior related work experience and job performance: role of personality

Documents