situational strength: past and present
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
Situational Strength:
Past and Present
Reeshad S. Dalal
Conferinţa Asociația Psihologilor din România
November 12, 2021
Thank you for inviting me!
![Page 2: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Overview of Today’s Talk
⚫ Introduction to the concept of situational strength
⚫ My empirical work on situational strength
– Situational strength at multiple levels of analysis:
occupation, organization, and job
– An unanticipated result, followed by a replication and
extension
– Other relevant research
– Practical implications
2
![Page 3: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Situational Strength: Basic Idea
⚫ The situational “press” can be so strong that
everyone behaves similarly (strong
situation)
– If everyone behaves similarly due to the
situation, dispositions (e.g., personality) will not
predict behavior well
![Page 4: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Situational Strength: Formal
Definition
⚫ Implicit or explicit cues provided by
external entities regarding the
desirability of potential behaviors (Meyer,
Dalal, & Hermida, 2010, p. 122)
4
![Page 5: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
An Example
What do people do at a...?
![Page 6: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Situational Strength: History⚫ Idea expressed in a rudimentary form by
many famous social scientists:
– Max Weber (1922)o Bureaucracies provide a set of rationally
developed, rule-based procedures designed specifically to overcome the processing shortcomings of individuals
o …thereby increasing efficiency but also minimizing individual freedom of choice
– Carl Rogers (1954)o Traits necessary for success in therapy (e.g.,
openness to experience, internal locus of control) are “permitted to emerge” when situations provide psychological safety and freedom (p. 256)
– Stanley Milgram (1965, p. 74)o “One aim of the [obedience] research was to
study behavior in a strong situation of deep consequence to the participants” (p. 74)
![Page 7: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Situational Strength: More History
⚫ But typically attributed to Walter Mischel
– Personality and Assessment (1968)
o Personality does not matter!
o Under what circumstances does personality matter?
![Page 8: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Situational Strength:
Yet More History
⚫ Argued to be “the most important situational moderating variable” (Snyder & Ickes, 1985, p. 904)
– Personality predicts behavior more strongly in weak situations than in strong situations
⚫ But…
– This conclusion may have been “prematurely accepted” or even become a “dogma” (Cooper & Withey, 2009, p. 68, 70)
– Very little work in organizational settings
– That’s where I came in
![Page 9: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Primary Hypothesis Tested in
Several Studies
9
Personality
_
Job Performance
Situational Strength
Stripped down to their core…
+
![Page 10: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Example #1:
Occupation Level (O*NET)
10
Personality1. Conscientiousness
_
Job Performance1. Overall Performance
2. Task Performance
Situational Strength1. Constraints
2. Consequences
+
Meyer, Dalal, and Bonaccio (2009, Journal of Organizational Behavior)
Individual Employee Level
Occupation Level
![Page 11: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
⚫ Constraints on decision and action (7 items; α = 0.72; Obs. Range = 20-59)
– E.g.: “How much decision-making freedom, without supervision, does the job offer?” (reverse-scored)
⚫ Consequences of decisions and actions (7 items; α = 0.79; Obs. Range = 43-85)
– E.g.: “How much responsibility is there for the health and safety of others in this job?”
Situational Strength1. Constraints
2. Consequences
⚫ Examples of strongoccupations
– Airline pilots
– Nuclear equipment operation technicians
⚫ Examples of weakoccupations
– Poets, lyricists, and creative writers
– Personnel recruiters
![Page 12: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
⚫ Meta-analysis of single-occupation primary studies of conscientiousness-performance relationship
– Overall Performance
o K = 82, N = 10,943, r = 0.15, ρ = 0.19
o Q = 137.7 (p < 0.05), 90% CV = 0.08, 0.30
– Task Performance
o K = 33, N = 4,528, r = 0.13, ρ = 0.15
o Q = 74.1 (p < 0.05), 90% CV = 0.08, 0.30
– Results similar to those of previous meta-analyses
– Absence of homogeneity suggests study-level moderators
Personality1. Conscientiousness
Job Performance1. Overall Performance
2. Task Performance+
![Page 13: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
⚫ WLS regression
– Outcome is rC,P
– Predictor is Constraints or Consequences
![Page 14: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
β = -0.16, p < 0.05
![Page 15: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
β = -0.23, p < 0.05
![Page 16: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
β = -0.16, p < 0.10
![Page 17: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
β = -0.21, p < 0.05
![Page 18: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Example #2:
Organization Level (Climate Strength)
18
Personality1. Conscientiousness
_
Job Performance1. Safety Compliance Behavior
2. Safety Helping Behavior
Situational Strength1. Safety Climate Strength
+
Lee & Dalal (2016, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology)
Individual Employee Level
Organization Level
![Page 19: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
⚫ Sample
– Level 1 N = 964, Level 2 N = 17
– 15% female, mean age = 38
– Predominantly manufacturing jobs across
various industries (e.g., food, heavy machinery,
chemicals) in Korea
⚫Measures
– Conscientiousness (Saucier’s, 1994, Minimarkers)
– Safety climate (Griffin & Neal, 2000)
o Climate Strength = -1*SD of within-org. scores
– Safety compliance behavior (Neal & Griffin, 2006)
– Safety helping behavior (Hofmann et al., 2003) 19
Even though we use a
dispersion model (Chan, 1998):
Median rwg(j) = 0.76, ICC (1) =
0.35, and ICC (2) = 0.97
Still, power to detect cross-
level interaction (Mathieu et
al., 2012) > 0.90
![Page 20: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Personality1. Conscientiousness
_
Job Performance1. Safety Compliance Behavior
2. Safety Helping Behavior
Situational Strength1. Safety Climate Strength
+
Control Variables: Safety climate level (L2),
Organization size (L2), Number of respondents per
organization (L2), and Age (L1)
γ = -0.65, p < 0.01
![Page 21: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Personality1. Conscientiousness
_
Job Performance1. Safety Compliance Behavior
2. Safety Helping Behavior
Situational Strength1. Safety Climate Strength
+
Control Variables: Safety climate level (L2),
Organization size (L2), Number of respondents per
organization (L2), and Age (L1)
γ = -0.53, p < 0.01
![Page 22: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Example #3:
Job Level (Perceived Situational Strength)
22
Personality1. Conscientiousness
2. Agreeableness
Job Performance1. Organizational
Citizenship Behavior
2. Counterproductive Work
Behavior
Situational Strength1. Clarity
2. Consistency
3. Constraints
4. Consequences
Study 4 of Meyer et al. (2014, Journal of Management)
Individual Employee Level
= Job Level
+ for OCB
- for CWB
- for OCB
+ for CWB
![Page 23: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
⚫ Sample
– N = 588
– 47% female, mean age = 39
– Variety of job titles, industries, and locations
within the U.S.
⚫Measures
– Conscientiousness & Agreeableness (Goldberg’s,
1999, IPIP)
– Organizational Citizenship Behavior (Williams &
Anderson, 1991)
– Counterproductive Work Behavior (Bennett &
Robinson, 2000’s measure of Workplace Deviance
Behavior)23
![Page 24: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
⚫Measures (Continued)
– Situational Strength
o Original scale, validated in Studies 1-3 of this
paper (current study is Study 4)
o “Four Cs” (from Meyer et al., 2010, theory paper)
❑Clarity (α = 0.94; 7 items; e.g., “On this job, specific
information about work-related responsibilities is provided”)
❑Consistency (α = 0.91; 7 items; e.g., “On this job, different
sources of work information are always consistent with
each other”)
❑Constraints (α = 0.94; 7 items; e.g., “On this job, an
employee is prevented from making his/her own
decisions”)
❑Consequences (α = 0.89; 7 items; e.g., “On this job, an
employee’s decisions have extremely important
consequences for other people”)
24
![Page 25: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Personality1. Conscientiousness
2. Agreeableness
Job Performance1. Organizational
Citizenship Behavior
2. Counterproductive Work
Behavior
Situational Strength1. Clarity
2. Consistency
3. Constraints
4. Consequences
+ for OCB
- for CWB
Individual Employee Level
= Job Levelβ = -0.14, p < 0.05
- for OCB
+ for CWB
![Page 26: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
Personality1. Conscientiousness
2. Agreeableness
Job Performance1. Organizational
Citizenship Behavior
2. Counterproductive Work
Behavior
Situational Strength1. Clarity
2. Consistency
3. Constraints
4. Consequences
Individual Employee Level
= Job Levelβ = -0.13, p < 0.05
+ for OCB
- for CWB
- for OCB
+ for CWB
![Page 27: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
Personality1. Conscientiousness
2. Agreeableness
Job Performance1. Organizational
Citizenship Behavior
2. Counterproductive Work
Behavior
Situational Strength1. Clarity
2. Consistency
3. Constraints
4. Consequences
Individual Employee Level
= Job Levelβ = -0.12, p < 0.05
+ for OCB
- for CWB
- for OCB
+ for CWB
![Page 28: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
Personality1. Conscientiousness
2. Agreeableness
Job Performance1. Organizational
Citizenship Behavior
2. Counterproductive Work
Behavior
Situational Strength1. Clarity
2. Consistency
3. Constraints
4. Consequences
Individual Employee Level
= Job Levelβ = -0.09, p < 0.05
+ for OCB
- for CWB
- for OCB
+ for CWB
![Page 29: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
Personality1. Conscientiousness
2. Agreeableness
Job Performance1. Organizational
Citizenship Behavior
2. Counterproductive Work
Behavior
Situational Strength1. Clarity
2. Consistency
3. Constraints
4. Consequences
Individual Employee Level
= Job Levelβ = -0.07, p < 0.10
+ for OCB
- for CWB
- for OCB
+ for CWB
![Page 30: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
Personality1. Conscientiousness
2. Agreeableness
Job Performance1. Organizational
Citizenship Behavior
2. Counterproductive Work
Behavior
Situational Strength1. Clarity
2. Consistency
3. Constraints
4. Consequences
Individual Employee Level
= Job Levelβ = -0.10, p < 0.05
+ for OCB
- for CWB
- for OCB
+ for CWB
![Page 31: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
Personality1. Conscientiousness
2. Agreeableness
Job Performance1. Organizational
Citizenship Behavior
2. Counterproductive Work
Behavior
Situational Strength1. Clarity
2. Consistency
3. Constraints
4. Consequences
Individual Employee Level
= Job Level
β = -0.10, p < 0.05
+ for OCB
- for CWB
- for OCB
+ for CWB
![Page 32: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
Personality1. Conscientiousness
2. Agreeableness
Job Performance1. Organizational
Citizenship Behavior
2. Counterproductive Work
Behavior
Situational Strength1. Clarity
2. Consistency
3. Constraints
4. Consequences
Individual Employee Level
= Job Levelβ = -0.07, p < 0.05
+ for OCB
- for CWB
- for OCB
+ for CWB
![Page 33: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
Expected (and Found) Shape/Form of Interaction
![Page 34: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
34
Personality1. Conscientiousness
2. Agreeableness
Job Performance1. Organizational
Citizenship Behavior
2. Counterproductive Work
Behavior
Situational Strength1. Clarity
2. Consistency
3. Constraints
4. Consequences
Individual Employee Level
= Job Level
Oh no!!!
β = -0.18, p < 0.05
+ for OCB
- for CWB
- for OCB
+ for CWB
![Page 35: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
35
Personality1. Conscientiousness
2. Agreeableness
Job Performance1. Organizational
Citizenship Behavior
2. Counterproductive Work
Behavior
Situational Strength1. Clarity
2. Consistency
3. Constraints
4. Consequences
Individual Employee Level
= Job Level
Oh no!!!
β = -0.15, p < 0.05
+ for OCB
- for CWB
- for OCB
+ for CWB
![Page 36: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
36
Personality1. Conscientiousness
2. Agreeableness
Job Performance1. Organizational
Citizenship Behavior
2. Counterproductive Work
Behavior
Situational Strength1. Clarity
2. Consistency
3. Constraints
4. Consequences
Individual Employee Level
= Job Level
Oh no!!!
β = -0.25, p < 0.05
+ for OCB
- for CWB
- for OCB
+ for CWB
![Page 37: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
37
Personality1. Conscientiousness
2. Agreeableness
Job Performance1. Organizational
Citizenship Behavior
2. Counterproductive Work
Behavior
Situational Strength1. Clarity
2. Consistency
3. Constraints
4. Consequences
Individual Employee Level
= Job Level
Oh no!!!
β = -0.15, p < 0.05
+ for OCB
- for CWB
- for OCB
+ for CWB
![Page 38: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
38
Personality1. Conscientiousness
2. Agreeableness
Job Performance1. Organizational
Citizenship Behavior
2. Counterproductive Work
Behavior
Situational Strength1. Clarity
2. Consistency
3. Constraints
4. Consequences
Individual Employee Level
= Job Level
Oh no!!!
β = -0.09, p < 0.05
+ for OCB
- for CWB
- for OCB
+ for CWB
![Page 39: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
39
Personality1. Conscientiousness
2. Agreeableness
Job Performance1. Organizational
Citizenship Behavior
2. Counterproductive Work
Behavior
Situational Strength1. Clarity
2. Consistency
3. Constraints
4. Consequences
Individual Employee Level
= Job Level
Oh no!!!
β = -0.11, p < 0.05
+ for OCB
- for CWB
- for OCB
+ for CWB
![Page 40: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
40
Personality1. Conscientiousness
2. Agreeableness
Job Performance1. Organizational
Citizenship Behavior
2. Counterproductive Work
Behavior
Situational Strength1. Clarity
2. Consistency
3. Constraints
4. Consequences
Individual Employee Level
= Job Level
Oh no!!!
β = -0.20, p < 0.05
+ for OCB
- for CWB
- for OCB
+ for CWB
![Page 41: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
41
Personality1. Conscientiousness
2. Agreeableness
Job Performance1. Organizational
Citizenship Behavior
2. Counterproductive Work
Behavior
Situational Strength1. Clarity
2. Consistency
3. Constraints
4. Consequences
Individual Employee Level
= Job Level
Oh no!!!
β = -0.11, p < 0.05
+ for OCB
- for CWB
- for OCB
+ for CWB
![Page 42: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
42
Expected Shape/Form of Interaction
Found Shape/Form of Interaction
![Page 43: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Example #4:
Job Level (Perceived Situational Strength)
43
Personality (T1)1. Conscientiousness
2. Agreeableness
3. Emotional Stability
Job Performance (T2) 1. Counterproductive Work
Behavior –
Organizationally Directed
2. Counterproductive Work
Behavior – Interpersonally
Directed
Task-Performance-Focused
Situational Strength (T1 & T2)1. Clarity
2. Constraints
Dalal et al. (2020, Journal of Business and Psychology)
Individual Employee
Level = Job Level
Negative
Affect
(T2)
Counterproductive-Work-Behavior-
Focused Situational Strength (T2)1. Organizationally Directed
2. Interpersonally Directed
_+
__
![Page 44: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
44
OK, let’s take it step-by-step!
![Page 45: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
⚫Goals:
– Replicate “anomalous”
counterproductive-work-behavior-related
findings from Meyer et al. (2014)
– Extend situational strength theory
45
![Page 46: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
⚫Basic Idea (Part 1):
46
Strong situation blocks one outlet for poor
performance (e.g., poor task performance)
Employees predisposed toward such behavior
experience “reactance” (negative affect)
They displace their low-performance predisposition to a
second outlet (e.g., counterproductive work behavior),
thereby intensifying low performance in the second domain…
…unless that second outlet, too, is blocked by
a strong situation
![Page 47: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
⚫Basic Idea (Part 2):– Need to match the (strong) situation to the
performance outcome
– The “4 Cs” model of situational strength (Meyer et al.,
2010, 2014) was developed with task performance in
mind
– It may generalize to organizational citizenship
behavior
o Going “above and beyond” expectations on work tasks
– But it does not generalize as far as
counterproductive work behavior
o And in fact is likely to have unintended consequences
o Therefore, need a different way to create strong situation
for counterproductive work behavior47
![Page 48: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
⚫ Sample
– N = 369
– 30% female, mean age = 33
– Variety of job titles, industries, and locations
within the U.S. (54%) and India (46%)
– Two timepoints, separated by a fortnight
⚫Measures
– Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, &
Emotional Stability (John et al.’s, 1991, BFI)
– Counterproductive Work Behavior (Bennett &
Robinson, 2000’s measure of Workplace Deviance
Behavior)
48
![Page 49: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
⚫Measures (Continued)
– Task-Performance-Focused Situational
Strength (Meyer et al., 2014)
o Clarity (T1 α = 0.93, T2 α = 0.95)
o Constraints (T1 α = 0.95, T2 α = 0.96)
o Did not measure Consistency or
Consequences
– Counterproductive-Work-Behavior-
Focused Situational Strength
o Extent to which the organization discourages
versus encourages counterproductive work
behavior (subsequently reverse-scored)
o α = 0.96 for both organizationally- and
interpersonally-directed forms49
![Page 50: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
50
Personality (T1)1. Conscientiousness
2. Agreeableness
3. Emotional Stability
Job Performance (T2) 1. Counterproductive Work
Behavior –
Organizationally Directed
2. Counterproductive Work
Behavior – Interpersonally
Directed
Task-Performance-Focused
Situational Strength (T1 & T2)1. Clarity
2. Constraints
Negative
Affect
(T2)
Counterproductive-Work-Behavior-
Focused Situational Strength (T2)1. Organizationally Directed
2. Interpersonally Directed
_+
_+
_
When examining only counterproductive-work-behavior-
focused situational strength…
We expect the “typical” form of interaction for situational strength
_
![Page 51: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
51
Statistically significant interaction with expected shape/form
observed in all 6 cases (3 personality traits x 2 forms of
counterproductive work behavior and corresponding form of
situational strength)
![Page 52: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
52
Personality (T1)1. Conscientiousness
2. Agreeableness
3. Emotional Stability
Job Performance (T2) 1. Counterproductive Work
Behavior –
Organizationally Directed
2. Counterproductive Work
Behavior – Interpersonally
Directed
Task-Performance-Focused
Situational Strength (T1 & T2)1. Clarity
2. Constraints
Negative
Affect
(T2)
Counterproductive-Work-Behavior-
Focused Situational Strength (T2)1. Organizationally Directed
2. Interpersonally Directed
_+
__
When examining only task-performance-focused situational strength…
We expect to replicate the “anomalous” results from Meyer et al. (2014)
_
![Page 53: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
53
Expected shape/form of interaction observed in all 24 cases (3
personality traits x 2 forms of counterproductive work behavior x 2
forms of task-performance-focused situational strength x 2
timepoints)
Statistically significant in 15/24 cases (8/8 for Conscientiousness,
6/8 for Agreeableness, and 1/8 for Emotional Stability)
![Page 54: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
⚫Turning now to the moderated
mediation model…
– Mediated model with Stage 1 moderation
o Shape/form of interaction always as expected
o Generally statistically significant for
Conscientiousness and Agreeableness but
not for Emotional Stability
– Mediated model with Stage 2 moderation
o Shape/form of interaction always as expected
o Always statistically significant
54
![Page 55: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
⚫Exploratory analysis examining 3-way
interactions by country (U.S. vs. India)
– First stage:
o 3-way interactions never statistically
significant
o That is, 2-way interaction generalizes across
countries
– Second stage:
o 3-way interactions always statistically
significant (stronger in India) but 2-way
interactions also always remained significant
o That is, 2-way interaction is stronger in India
but remains significant in the U.S. 55
![Page 56: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Other Related Research
⚫ Sources (antecedents) of situational strength – Alaybek et al. (2017, Frontiers in Psychology)
⚫ Restricted variance interactions – Keeler et al.
(2019, Journal of Applied Psychology)
⚫ “Personality strength” – Dalal et al. (2015, Journal of
Management) and Green et al. (2019, Journal of Management)
⚫ Examining the (mis)fit between actual and
preferred levels of situational strength – Kim et
al. (in progress)
56
![Page 57: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Practical Implications
⚫ Personality and other non-cognitive
individual differences are not great
predictors of job applicants’ success in
jobs/occupations/organizations
characterized by high situational strength
⚫ Potential divergence in situational strength
facet scores as a function of organizational
hierarchy
– E.g., CEOs may experience high consequences
but low clarity, consistency, and constraints
57
![Page 58: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Practical Implications (Continued)
⚫ Situational strength on a job can change
over time as a function of HR practices
– Telework and flexible work schedules may
decrease situational strength
– Training, socialization, performance monitoring,
and pay-for-performance may increase
situational strength
– To what extent are various practices within an
organization’s HRM system aligned vs.
misaligned?
58
![Page 59: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Practical Implications (Continued)
⚫ Preferences for situational strength
– May differ
o Across employees: Employee X may want autonomy
whereas Employee Y may want structure
o Within an employee over time: An employee may want
more structure during the first few months on the job
and more autonomy when he or she is highly
experienced
– Misfit between actual and preferred levels of
situational strength may lead to stress,
dissatisfaction, and intent to quit
59
![Page 60: Situational Strength: Past and Present](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041811/625445e6b27aac4f892176b9/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Questions?
60