Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 19, No.

1, Fall 2004 (2004)

ILLUSTRATING A HIERARCHICAL APPROACH FOR SELECTING PERSONALITY TRAITS IN PERSONNEL DECISIONS: AN APPLICATION OF THE 3M MODEL Eric G. Harris
University of South Florida

James M. Lee
University of Tampa

ABSTRACT: Recent research indicates that managers are not aware of the latest developments in theory regarding the use of personality inventories in personnel selection decisions. This article presents a systematic approach to selecting traits for use in personnel selection that is based on recent developments in hierarchical personality models. Results from a study of real estate sales associates indicate that the new approach does have much to offer the area. Results are discussed along with managerial implications. KEY WORDS: personality; salesperson performance; employee selection; hierarchical models.

INTRODUCTION Selecting sales personnel who possess characteristics that inuence success in the marketplace is an important issue for todays sales manager. Not surprisingly, a number of individual difference variables have been examined during the course of several decades that purportedly affect performance (for review see Churchill, Ford, Hartley, & Walker, 1985). While the efcacy of personality testing as a means of selecting and promoting employees has a rich research tradition (e.g., Black, 1994; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991), it is clear that a gap exists between the latest developments in academic research and managerial practice (Nowicki & Rosse, 2002). For example, Nowicki & Rosse (2002) recently reported that managers are not aware of advances in research and theory that could be applied to day-to-day hiring [p. 168]. Although the results of the Nowicki & Rosse (2002) study suggest that managers may
Address correspondence to Eric G. Harris, College of Business, University of South FloridaLakeland, 3433 Winter Lake Road, Lakeland, FL 33803-9714. E-mail: eharris@ lklnd.usf.edu. 53
0889-3268/04/0900-0053/0 2004 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

54

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

not be aware of advances in research and theory, it is encouraging that a considerable number of managers in the study felt that personality is a key factor in hiring decisions. Recent advances in hierarchical approaches to personality may have much to offer in this area. Given that managers appear to be unaware of advances in research and theory that may be applied to hiring decisions, the purpose of the current article is to suggest a systematic approach that is based on recent developments in hierarchical personality theory that may be used for selecting personality variables for use in sales personnel selection decisions. The article acknowledges previous research and debates in the psychology literature regarding theory building and bandwidth-delity issues (e.g., Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996; Schneider, Hough, & Dunnette, 1996) and illustrates the use of a hierarchical model approach. The approach utilized, based on the 3M Model (Mowen, 2000), is compared to a broad-based approach that uses the widely accepted Five Factor Model [hereafter FFM] (Costa & McCrae, 1985; Goldberg, 1992) as well as an approach that focuses on narrowly-dened (i.e., specic) job-related traits. Both the broad based and specic trait approaches have been advocated in the literature, and the current work that advocates a hierarchical procedure may provide an opportunity for managers to reap the benets of both of these approaches. Why Personality? A goal of personality research applied to personnel selection decisions is to identify stable traits that can explain and predict employee performance. Volumes of work have been produced that relate personality to job performance, and several issues pertaining to theory development and managerial use have been reviewed (for review see Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001). Personality traits have been shown to be valid predictors of performance and, as Hogan, Hogan, and Roberts (1996) assert, they can also enhance fairness in employment decisions. An important aspect of theoretical research, then, is identifying personality variables that correlate with overall job performance and behavior, and countless studies have attempted to do so (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Jolson & Comer, 1997; Lamont & Lundstrom, 1977; Srivastava & Sager, 1999). Specication of the criterion variable under consideration is also an important issue (Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996), and sales managers must consider important issues such as the ability of salespeople to reach sales goals and serve customers. Two problems that are often noted regarding personality and personnel selection is that little variance in criterion variables is explained and the results often vary widely across contexts. This can occur because the selected traits are too broad to account for meaningful levels of

ERIC G. HARRIS AND JAMES M. LEE

55

variance or the traits are so specic that there is limited generalizability. Much debate has centered around such bandwidth / delity issues (e.g., see Hogan & Roberts, 1996; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996; Schneider, Hough, & Dunnette, 1996). Bandwidth refers to the specicity of personality measurement while delity assesses the accuracy or precision of the measurement. While Ones & Viswesvaran (1996) argue for the use of broad traits (e.g., FFM) in selection decisions, Schneider et al. (1996) suggest that much is to be gained from the use of specic trait measures. Broad versus Specic Traits Perhaps the most commonly used model of broad traits is the FFM (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Its effectiveness as a tool for employee selection decisions has been examined in numerous settings (e.g., Barrick et al., 2001; Schmidt & Ryan, 1993). In a meta-analysis, Mount et al. (1998), demonstrated that the FFM can sufciently describe personality at a global level. This model (comprised of agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, openness, and emotional stability) has been used extensively in personality research. Broad personality traits, such as is found in the FFM approach, have nomological usefulness because they typically are generalizable across many situations and roles and they have been shown to exhibit acceptable levels of prediction (Mount & Barrick, 1991). However, the superiority of broad traits has been questioned (e.g., Hogan, 1995). For example, knowing that a given individual is conscientious may not be helpful in determining whether he or she would be more successful as either a salesperson or a customer service representative (cf. Schneider et al., 1996). While Smith et al. (2001) refer to the FFM as an adequate taxonomy, other researchers have questioned its usefulness and have suggested areas for potential improvement, and evidence suggests that narrow traits may be useful in predicting job performance (Schneider et al., 1996). In discussing hierarchical approaches, Paunonen & Jackson (2000) suggest that additional variance in outcome measures may be explained by considering traits outside of the FFM. This is of particular importance for sales managers given that several traits outside of the FFM have been examined in sales force effectiveness studies. As Schneider et al. (1996) assert, the development of theories that incorporate increased specicity may allow researchers to better understand on-the-job behavior. There are several examples of narrowly dened traits in the sales literature. Examples include working hard and working smart (Sujan, 1986). Working hard represents the tendency for salespeople to put in long hours working towards goals, while working smart represents areas such as planning and preparing for sales interactions. Problems

56

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

exist, however, with relying solely on narrowly dened personality traits. For example, a problem with the narrow approach is that the reasons why individuals work smart or work hard are ignored. Another weakness is that results frequently cannot be replicated in other occupational settings. Both of these problems can be addressed with the addition of broad traits. When used in combination, broad and specic traits may be both predictive and descriptive. This approach is illustrated below by the use of hierarchical models of personality. Hierarchical Approaches The basic assumption of hierarchical models is that personality traits exist in tiers of varying degrees of abstractness. Broad traits, such as those found in the FFM, are combined with specic traits to predict and explicate a specied criterion. A hierarchical approach also provides a foundation to build a nomological network of related constructs. Although personality researchers have long proposed that traits exist at varying levels (Allport, 1961; Buss, 1989; Eysenck, 1947; Harris & Mowen, 2001; Mowen & Spears, 1999; Paunonen, 1998), the application of these models to employee selection decisions has been sparse. A pragmatic issue is identifying and selecting the specic traits needed at each hierarchical level. The 3M Model, a hierarchical personality approach, presents an opportunity to guide selection of traits to include in such analyses. The 3M Hierarchical Approach As discussed previously, the 3M Model is one approach to building a hierarchical model. A unique feature of the approach is that it suggests that personality ows from the broad to the specic level traits by implying that one or more broad traits may inuence specic level traits. Mowen (2000) refers to his model as providing a structural basis for integrating personality traits, situations, and behavioral tendencies of individuals. As such, it has been proposed to be a springboard for understanding both reactive and proactive behavior (Sujan, 2001). Thus, the value of the 3M is largely found in its ability to provide a framework for identifying and selecting the relevant variables needed at each hierarchical level to predict and explain a specied criterion variable. Naturally, specic trait selection at each level should be driven by theory and parsimony. The model appears to be suited for applications in salesforce selection decisions given that it encompasses traits that have been previously related to sales performance such as competitiveness (Brown, Cron, & Slocum, 1998) and the need for arousal (Hanna, Ridnour & Kizilbash, 1993).

ERIC G. HARRIS AND JAMES M. LEE

57

The 3M explicitly proposes that one or more elemental (i.e., broad) traits inuence lower-level (i.e., more specic) traits and behaviors, and as such, the 3M provides a theoretical rationale for both full and partial mediation models. Using the approach requires researchers to consider traits at four levels of abstractness that move from the broad to the specic as we progress through the hierarchy. The highest level of abstractness includes broad elemental traits. This is followed by compound, situational, and surface traits. The FFM traits (i.e., agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, openness, and stability) are incorporated within the 3M as elemental traits. These are the most basic, or abstract, traits common to individuals. Elemental traits are dened as the basic underlying predispositions that arise from genetics and a persons early learning. Similar in concept to Allports (1961) cardinal level traits, individuals are believed to possess differing levels of each trait. It is noted that there is disagreement about how many basic, or elemental, traits exist. In addition to the ve found in the FFM, other accepted personality models have proposed three (e.g., Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975), seven factors (Cloninger, Svrakic, & Przybeck, 1993), or even eight (Mowen 2000) traits. Mowen (2000) proposed elemental traits include material needs, the need for arousal, and the need for physical resources traits in addition to the FFM traits. Compound level traits compose the next level in the hierarchy. Similar to Allports (1961) central traits, compound traits represent cross-situational predispositions to act emerging from the interplay of elemental traits, culture, and the learning history of the individual. Because of the cross-situational nature of compound traits, a single trait may be used to explain multiple situational and surface traits. This is important to the effective building of a nomological network of traits. Situational traits are the unidimensional enduring tendencies to express consistent patterns of behavior within a general situational context (e.g., at work). This is a result of a combination of elemental and compound traits as well as the inuence of a situational context (e.g., sales presentations). When combined with the elemental and compound traits, situational traits should explain signicant variance in specic (or surface) traits. Surface traits are the most concrete level of traits. These traits represent category-specic dispositions to act with regard to a narrow domain of behavior, and as such, describe enduring dispositions to behave within specic situational contexts. Examples of surface level traits include customer orientation (Brown, Mowen, Donavan, & Licata, 2002) and bargaining tendency (Harris & Mowen, 2001). The specicity of surface traits is evident in the items that tap the constructs (e.g., I get customers to talk about their service needs with me or I enjoy negotiating prices).

58

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Identifying Traits for Inclusion A pragmatic issue for managers is deciding which traits to include in personnel decisions. Again, several arguments for broad versus narrow approaches have been presented in the literature. The rst step in the hierarchical approach suggested here is to have a clear understanding of the criterion variable(s). For example, using job performance as a dependent variable is not as comprehensive as separately measuring different subjective or objective constructs (cf. Schneider et al. 1996). Several job performance variables may be of importance to the sales manager, including ability to reach sales goals and overall customer service behaviors. Once the criterion has been selected, specic surface traits (i.e., behavioral tendencies) for each job category (e.g., sales, customer service) can be identied. Although it has been argued that personnel selection procedures need not be altered for specic industries or contexts (e.g., Schmidt, Law, Hunter, Rothstein, Pearlman, & McDaniel, 1993), it is likely that certain traits will be more important in one industry setting over another (Raymark, Schmit, & Guion, 1997). In a sales context, the surface traits of working hard and working smart (i.e., planning for a sale) should inuence both objective and subjective measures of job performance. As discussed previously, working hard represents a tendency to work tirelessly when pursuing sales whereas working smart assesses the degree to which salespeople put forth cognitive effort before sales interactions take place. Each activity therefore represents a disposition to act in a specic context (i.e., on-the-job sales situations such as planning for specic interactions, or working long hours to accomplish specic goals). The next step is to identify the situational, compound, and elemental traits that may inuence performance. In many job situations, the unidimensional trait of job resourcefulness is appropriate to consider. This trait represents an individuals tendency to garner scarce resources and overcome obstacles in pursuit of job-related goals (Licata, Mowen, Harris, & Brown, 2003), and it has been shown to be important in contexts such as health care, food services and banking settings. Simply put, some employees tend to be more efcient at accomplishing job-related tasks when there is a lack of organizational resources while others struggle. A possible explanation for why employees are resourceful may be found in the compound trait of competitiveness (i.e., the need to outperform others). Competitiveness has been linked with salesperson goal setting (Brown, Cron, & Slocum, 1998), bargaining proneness and task orientation (Mowen, 2000). It is believed that highly competitive individuals will give higher self-appraisals of their work and tend to meet goals better than individuals low in trait competitiveness.

ERIC G. HARRIS AND JAMES M. LEE

59

Finally, the relevant elemental traits need to be selected. All ve elemental traits have been shown to impact job performance at varying levels of magnitude (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Hence, all ve traits are proposed in the current work. Furthermore, the need for material resources trait was added to the analysis based on the assertion that individuals high in this need may view sales as instrumental to fullling material goals. The proposed hierarchical model therefore includes the elemental traits of agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, openness, stability, and need for material resources; the competitiveness compound trait; job resourcefulness as a situational trait; and working hard and working smart as surface traits. Together these traits form the hierarchical model purposively constructed for a sales context. Based on previous work in similar settings (e.g., Licata et al., 2003), we hypothesize that the hierarchical model approach will explain signicantly more variance in job performance than either the FFM approach or a specic-trait approach. This is stated formally below. Hypothesis 1A: The hierarchical model will explain signicantly more variance in both self and objective job performance measures than the FFM. Hypothesis 1B: The hierarchical model will explain signicantly more variance in both self and objective job performance measures than will domain-specic traits. METHOD Study participants were real estate associates from a large real estate organization in the Midwest. During regularly scheduled sales meetings management introduced the researchers to the associates and offered their support for the project. Paper and pencil surveys were administered that contained a version of the FFM, the 3M measures, and several unrelated constructs. Respondents were assured of the condentiality of their responses. Upon completion, the surveys were returned directly to the researchers either at the end of the meetings or through the mail. Management assisted the researchers in following-up with the respondents and encouraged the associates to complete the surveys. In total, 225 surveys were distributed during the sales meetings. One hundred fty-two surveys were returned, however, six surveys were discarded due to high levels of missing data (response rate = 65%), and two surveys were discarded for obvious response bias (i.e., all responses at either extreme anchor for every scale on the questionnaire). A follow-up analysis revealed that the non-respondents did not differ signicantly from respondents on either demographic or outcome measures.

60

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

In addition, we obtained an objective sales performance measure for the associates. We were unable to obtain objective measures for associates who had only recently joined the organizations, which left our usable sample size for objective sales performance at 117 and a total of 144 surveys for self-ratings. Importantly, all 144 respondents with self-ratings were matched for the objective performance ratings. That is, a subset of employees (from the 144) was utilized for the analyses pertaining to objective performance ratings. The median tenure in the industry for the subjects was 6 1/2 years and the median tenure with the current rm was 4 years. The average age of the respondents was 49 years, and 70% were female and 30% were male. Measures Trait Measures. Measures of the elemental and compound constructs examined in this study were adapted from Mowen (2000). These measures were each four-item scales that Mowen (2000) drew from Saucier (1994). The scales have exhibited acceptable psychometric properties in previous research (e.g., Harris & Mowen, 2001; Licata et al., 2003; Mowen & Spears, 1999). Examples for extraversion include shy and quiet when with people (a :92). The items were reversed coded so higher scores indicate higher levels of extraversion. Examples for openness include imaginative and nd novel solutions (a :94). Items for conscientiousness include orderly and organized (a :92). Moody and touchy exemplify measures for stability (a :88). Low scores represent emotional instability. Kind to others and sympathetic represent measures for agreeability (a :92). Competitiveness included items such as I enjoy competition more than others, and I feel it is important to outperform others (a :91). Items for need for material resources included Acquiring valuable things is important to me and Like to own nice things more than most people (a :92). The job resourcefulness measure was adapted from Licata et al. (2003) and included items such as I am very clever and enterprising in doing my job, and I am a very resourceful person in nding ways to do my job (a :90). Three items were used to measure the working hard construct. These measures were adapted from Sujan, Weitz, & Kumar (1994). Examples of the items include I work long hours to meet my sales objectives and I work untiringly at selling a customer until I get an order (a :78). Working smart was also adapted from (Sujan et al., 1994). This scale originally included twelve items with six items being reversed scored. In the current study, exploratory analyses revealed that the reversed scored items loaded onto a separate factor, and for this reason, only the six positively worded items were included in the analyses.

ERIC G. HARRIS AND JAMES M. LEE

61

Self-Rated Performance. Self ratings were assessed via an eleven-item scale derived from existing research on functional and technical service quality (Gronroos, 1990). Sample items include: ability to identify customer needs and ability to satisfy customers. The coefcient alpha (a) for this measure was .76. Objective Sales Performance. An objective performance measure was obtained directly from the participating rms. The percentage of sales goals achieved for the calendar year for full-time associates was used. It was important to only consider full-time associates with this measure as their income directly depended on their sales performance. The percentage of sales goals achieved measure has the advantage over traditional dollars sales volume in that it accounts for differences in particular sales territories and market potential. Results The hypotheses were tested utilizing a series of regression equations. First, each dependent measure (i.e., self-ratings, objective performance) was regressed on the FFM traits. Second, each dependent measure was regressed on the three specic traits (i.e., job resourcefulness, working hard, and working smarter). Finally, each dependent measure was regressed on the full hierarchical model traits. To more accurately compare models with varying number of variables, the adjusted coefcient of determination statistic (adj. R2) was used. That is, simply adding independent variables to the equations should alone increase the explanatory ability of the model. This statistic adjusts for the number of variables in the analysis and is useful for comparisons between equations with different numbers of predictor variables (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). Table 1 presents the results of the regression analysis. Self-ratings As shown in Table 1, the FFM traits accounted for 17% of the adjusted variance in self ratings (F = 6.68, df = 138, p < .05). Conscientiousness (b :19), openness (b :29), and stability (b :21) were all signicant predictors of self ratings at the p < .05 level. In the next regression analysis, the three specic traits were shown to explain 23% of the (adjusted) variance in self-ratings (F = 14.87, df = 140, p < .05). Job resourcefulness (b :42) and working hard (b :15, p < .10) were signicant predictors of self ratings. Finally, the full hierarchical model was utilized with the self-ratings being regressed on all of the traits in the model. The full model was signicant (F = 6.82, df = 133, p < .00), and the

62

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Table 1 Results Self-ratings b Broad traits Agree Conscientiousness Openness Extraversion Stability Adjusted R2 Model signicance Specic traits Job resourcefulness Working hard Working smart Adjusted R2 Model signicance Hierarchical Agree Conscientiousness Openness Extraversion Stability Materialism Competitiveness Job resourcefulness Working hard Working smart Adjusted R2 Model signicance ).07 .19 .29 ).11 .21 t-value ).824 2.33 3.26 )1.39 2.62 Sig. .41 .02 .00 .17 .01 .17 .00 .00 .06 .91 .23 .00 .47 .15 .33 .42 .01 .13 .05 .00 .02 .66 .29 .00 b .10 ).06 ).20 .12 .11 Sales goal obtained (%) t-value .987 ).62 )1.89 1.27 1.08 Sig. .33 .53 .06 .21 .28 .04 .08 .01 .39 .60 .03 .09 .23 .44 .33 .53 .33 .04 .74 .12 .09 .20 .08 .04

.42 .15 .01

5.40 1.92 .12

).25 .09 .05

)2.56 .870 .528

).06 .12 .10 ).06 .21 ).13 .18 .29 .19 ).04

).733 2.17 .989 ).814 2.80 )1.54 2.02 3.24 2.31 ).438

.12 ).08 ).12 .06 .10 ).23 ).04 ).18 .18 .14

1.22 ).772 ).974 .64 .982 )2.09 ).332 )1.57 1.69 1.31

n=144

n=117

adjusted r-square was 29%. Stability (b :21), competitiveness (b :18), job resourcefulness (b :29), and working hard (b :19) were all significant predictors at p < .05. Importantly, the change in variance accounted for was signicant between the FFM and the hierarchical model (17% vs. 29%, DR2 12%, F = 5.80, p < .05), as well as between the specic traits and the full hierarchical model (23% vs. 29%, DR2 6%, F = 2.80, p < .05). Table 2 provides an overview of the variance accounted for in each model. Objective Performance The FFM model for the objective performance measure was signicant at p < .10 (F = 2.03, df = 111). The adjusted r2 for the model was 4%. Openness was the only signicant predictor of objective performance

ERIC G. HARRIS AND JAMES M. LEE

63

Table 2 Comparison of Models based on r2 Approach FFM Specic traits Hierarchical n = 144 (self-rating), n = 117 (% sales goal) Self - ratings .17 .23 .29 Sales goal obtained(%) .04 .03 .08

(b :20, p < .10). Interestingly, this coefcient was negative, suggesting that objective performance actually decreased with higher levels of openness. Next, objective performance was regressed on the three specic traits. This model was also signicant at p < .10 (F = 2.26, df = 113) and the model explained only 3% of the adjusted variance. Job resourcefulness was a signicant predictor (b :25, p < .05). Finally, objective sales performance was regressed against the hierarchical model. This model was signicant at p < .05 (F = 2.04, df = 106) and the variance accounted for increased to 8%. This was an improvement compared to both the FFM model (4% vs. 8%, DR2 4%, p < .10) and the specic trait approach (3% vs. 8%, DR2 5%, p < .10), albeit at the p < .10 level for each comparison. Signicant predictors of sales performance included materialism (b = ).23, p < .05) and working hard (b :18, p < .10). In sum, the results support both Hypothesis 1A and Hypothesis 1B as the hierarchical model explained more adjusted variance than did either the FFM or specic surface traits for each outcome measure.

DISCUSSION The aim of the current work was to illustrate a hierarchical approach to using personality models so that managers could better understand the use of personality measures in selection decisions. The results indicate that such approaches may contribute to the literature pertaining to personnel selection. The hierarchical approach advocated here provides a framework for utilizing these traits in personnel selection decisions beyond the broad and specic trait approaches. Regarding specic traits that inuence the outcome variables, several results are notable. The results suggest that the traits of conscientiousness, openness, need for material resources, stability, competitiveness, job resourcefulness and working hard are all important in sales settings. It is notable that traits at more concrete levels of the hierarchy tend to add signicant explanatory power over the elemental level traits. As Mowen (2000) discusses, one would expect greater amounts of variance to be explained in outcome behaviors at more

64

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

concrete levels of the hierarchy. One possible explanation why stability was a signicant predictor of self-rated performance is its relationship with employee burnout. More emotionally stable individuals tend to tolerate stress better (Zellars & Perrewe, 2001) which may lead to high self-appraisals of job performance. The hierarchical approach essentially presents a hybrid of methods between the broad- and specic-based techniques discussed earlier. One advantage of the advocated approach is that the addition of the lower level variables provides a more comprehensive explanation of the criterion. However, due to sample size restrictions, a researcher may need to limit the number of theorized relationships. The focus should be on understanding those relationships which are predicted to have the greatest predictive and explanatory inuence on the criterion. Of course, a researcher could elect to not include any elemental traits. We caution against this approach because of the nomological validity that may be lost. It is important to note that the results indicate that hierarchical approaches may be well suited for personnel selection decisions, however, the results do not imply any notion of superiority of the 3M over the FFM as pertaining to the structure of the human personality. Rather, the results reveal that the 3M provides a hierarchically-based framework from which the selection of traits for inclusion in personnel selection decisions may be made. Clearly, the FFM has enjoyed significant research attention and has been shown to tap the basic dimensions of the human personality. However, the authors do believe that much is to be gained from hierarchical approaches as is found in the 3M. Limitations Although the results of the study support our guiding research hypothesis, limitations of the procedure should be discussed. First, the measures for the FFM traits were based on the four-item operationalizations of Mowen (2000). While these measures have demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties, the use of scales with only four items may be called into question on construct validity concerns. The use of four-item measures, however, signicantly shortens the amount of time required of respondents completing the surveys, and evidence does indicate that short versions of scales perform well compared to longer versions (Burisch, 1997). The results obtained are limited in that effect sizes are relatively small. The modest sample size included in the current work directly impacts the statistical power of the analyses reported. For a sample of size of at least n = 117, relatively small R2 values (e.g., 1015%) would be

ERIC G. HARRIS AND JAMES M. LEE

65

expected to be found statistically signicant (Hair et al., 1998), and these concerns should therefore be considered minimal. Nevertheless, future studies with larger sample sizes may be warranted. Only two job performance measures were taken in the current study. There are several opinions on the specicity of criterion variables in personnel selection studies (e.g., Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996; Schneider, Hough, & Dunnette, 1996). Future studies that utilize hierarchical approaches may include other job performance measures including supervisor assessments and, perhaps, customer perceptions of performance. Given the importance of the criterion variable problem, these issues are especially encouraged. Finally, the use of regression techniques may be improved upon by structural equation modeling (SEM) procedures. SEM allows for the estimation of the intercorrelation among the independent variables, and as such, accounts for multicollinearity in the data while simultaneously estimating model parameters. The relatively small sample size in the current study precluded the use of these techniques. Future research with larger sample sizes that utilizes SEM is therefore encouraged. CONCLUSION The current research suggests that managers may have much to gain by considering hierarchical approaches to personality in personnel selection decisions. In sum, our results support our hypotheses regarding the ability of hierarchical approaches to be used in personnel selection decisions. The hierarchical model approach utilized should be based on variables that theoretically relate to the criterion variables of choice. The illustration in this text was based on several variables that have been shown to be useful predictors of job performance analyses in various settings. Although our results may be viewed as preliminary, we encourage future work on hierarchical approaches to personality and their application to managerial problems.

REFERENCES
Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston Inc. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big-ve personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel psychology, 44(1), 126. Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? Personality and Performance, 9(1/2) 930. Black, K. R. (1994). Personality screening in employment. American Business Law Journal, 32(1), 69124.

66

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Brown, S. P., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, Jr., J. W. (1998). Effects of trait competitiveness and perceived intraorganizational competition on salesperson goal setting and performance. Journal of Marketing, 62(4), 88. Brown, T. J., Mowen, J. C., Donavan, D. T., & Licata, J. W. (2002). The customer orientation of service workers: Personality trait effects on self and supervisor performance ratings. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), 110119. Burisch, M. (1997). Test length and validity revisited. European Journal of Personality, 11, 303315. Buss, D. M. (1989). Personality as traits. American Psychologist, 44, (November), 1378 1388. Churchill, G. A., Ford, N. M., Hartley, S. W., & Walker, O. C., Jr. (1985). The determinants of salesperson performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 22 (May), 103118. Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of temperament and character (Vol. 50). Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO personality inventory manual. Odessa: FL.: Psychological Assessment Resources. Eysenck, H. J. (1947). Dimensions of personality. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck personality inventory. London: University of London Press. Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the big-ve factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 2642. Gronroos, C. (1990). Service management and marketing (Vol. 20). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis: with readings (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc. Hanna, N., Ridnour, R., & Kizilbash, A. (1993). Optimal stimulation level: Evidence relating the role of OSL in predicting sales personnel performance. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 19(1), 6576. Harris, E. G., & Mowen, J. C. (2001). The inuence of cardinal-, central-, and surface-level personality traits on consumers bargaining and complaint intentions. Psychology & Marketing, 18(11), 11321155. Hogan, R. (1995). On the insufciencies of the ve factor model for predicting managerial effectiveness. Symposium on Specifying Personality Variables in Employment Contexts, American Psychological Association, New York: APA. Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Issues and non-issues in the delity-bandwidth tradeoff. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17(6), 627637. Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Personality measurement and employment decisions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 51(5), 469477. Jolson, M. A., & Comer, L. B. (1997). The use of instrumental and expressive personality traits as indicators of a salespersons behavior. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 17, (Winter), 2943. Lamont, L. M., & Lundstrom, W. J. (1977). Identifying successful industrial salesmen bypersonality and personal characteristics. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, (November), 517529. Licata, J. L., Mowen, J. C., Harris, E. G., & Brown, T. J. (2003). On the trait antecedents and outcomes of service worker job resourcefulness: A hierarchical model approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), 256271. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the ve-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 8190. Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1991). The big ve personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 126. Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L. (1998). Five-factor model of personality and performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions. Human Performance, 11(2/3), 145165. Mowen, J. C. (2000). The 3M model of motivation and personality: Theory and empirical applications to consumer behavior (1st ed.). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

ERIC G. HARRIS AND JAMES M. LEE

67

Mowen, J. C., & Spears, N. (1999). Understanding compulsive buying among college students: A hierarchical approach. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8(4), 407430. Nowicki, M. D., & Rosse, J. G. (2002). Managers views of how to hire: Building bridges between science and practice. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(2), 157170. Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1996). Bandwidth-delity dilemma in personality measurement for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17(6), 609626. Paunonen, S. V. (1998). Hierarchical organization of personality and prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 538556. Paunonen, S. V., & Jackson, D. N. (2000). What is beyond the big ve? Plenty! Journal of Personality, 68, 821835. Raymark, P. H., Schmit, M. J., & Guion, R. M. (1997). Identifying potentially useful personality constructs for employee selection. Personnel Psychology, 50(3), 723737. Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldbergs unipolar big-ve markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63(3), 506516. Schmidt, M. J., & Ryan, A. M. (1993). The big ve in personnel selection: Factor structure in applicant and nonapplicant populations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 966974. Schmidt, F. L., Law, K., Hunter, J. E., Rothstein, H. R., Pearlman, K., & McDaniel, M. (1993). Renements in validity generalization methods: Implications for the situational specicity hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 312. Schneider, R. J., Hough, L. M., & Dunnette, M. D. (1996). Broadsided by broad traits: how to sink science in ve dimensions or less. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17(6), 639655. Smith, D. B., Hanges, P. J., & Dickson, M. W. (2001). Personnel selection and the big-ve factor model: Reexamining the effects of applicants frame of reference. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 304315. Srivastava, R., & Sager, J. K. (1999). Inuence of personal characteristics on salespeoples coping style. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 19, 4757. Sujan, H. (1986). Smarter versus harder: An exploratory attributional analysis of salespeoples motivation. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 4149. Sujan, (2001). Review: The 3M model of motivation and personality: Theory and empirical applications to consumer behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(3), 396. Sujan, H., Weitz, B. A., & Kumar, N. (1994). Learning orientation, working smart, and effective selling. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 3952. Tett, R.P., Jackson, D.J., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703742. Zellars, K. L., & Perrewe, P. L. (2001). Affective personality and the content of emotional support: Coping in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 459467.