Journal of Applied Psychology
2003, Vol. 88, No. 5, 954 –963
Copyright 2003 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
0021-9010/03/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.954
Conscientiousness, Autonomy Fit, and Development: A Longitudinal Study
Marcia J. Simmering
Jason A. Colquitt
Louisiana State University
University of Florida
Raymond A. Noe
Christopher O. L. H. Porter
The Ohio State University
Texas A&M University
The authors examined employee development and its relationship with Conscientiousness and person–
environment fit (in terms of needs and supplies of autonomy). They hypothesized that Conscientiousness
would be positively associated with development but only when employees felt that the autonomy
supplied by the organization did not fit their needs. In other words, whereas Conscientiousness could
supply the dispositional resources for development, misfit was needed to create the need for development.
The results supported the authors’ predictions. Conscientiousness was positively related to development
but only when employees were misfits with respect to autonomy. Employee involvement in development
activities was then linked to subsequent fit.
change either the environment (active adjustment) or the way that
he or she behaves in that environment (reactive adjustment). Similarly, a recent model of job crafting proposes that in many jobs
employees can exert some influence in the organization to change
their work tasks and interactions (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001).
Thus, employee development can be a means of changing both
oneself and one’s environment.
A variety of activities are used to promote employee development. These include setting goals for skill improvement, taking
formal courses, assuming challenging job responsibilities, undergoing assessment activities, and engaging in facilitative interpersonal relationships (Birdi, Allan, & Warr, 1997; Noe, 1999).
Whatever the activity, it is critical to build an understanding of
how to promote individuals’ development efforts and how those
efforts result in positive changes within the organization (Baldwin
& Padgett, 1993). Unfortunately, the few studies that have been
conducted on employee development have focused on a limited set
of individual antecedents or contextual antecedents (Birdi et al.,
1997; Maurer & Tarulli, 1994; Noe & Wilk, 1993). Research has
failed to examine the type of individual– context interactions that
predict most types of volitional behavior (e.g., Roberts, Hulin, &
Rousseau, 1978).
In this study, we examined employee development as a function
of both Conscientiousness and person– environment fit with respect to needs and supplies of autonomy. We argued that conscientious individuals should be more likely to engage in development, particularly when they are experiencing person–
environment misfit. Such individuals can use development to
proactively improve their fit, leading to better fit at a later point in
time (see Figure 1). In the sections below we detail the proposed
linkage between Conscientiousness and employee development, as
well as the moderating role of person– environment fit.
Recent changes in the global economy have presented organizations with the challenge of promoting continuous lifelong learning by their workers (London & Mone, 1999; London & Smither,
1999). Such learning is critical because job demands are increasingly dynamic, continually changing as a result of new technologies or increased competition (Hesketh & Neal, 1999). As a result,
today’s employees are expected to become more self-directed in
building their skills and managing their work environments
(Hedge & Borman, 1995). Consequently, employee development
has become an important component of maintaining an effective
workforce.
Employee development is a self-initiated, self-directed means
by which employees improve their competencies and work environment (London, 1989; London & Smither, 1999). As described
by London (1989), employee development consists of activities
that influence personal and professional growth. Developmental
activities can impact personal growth by leading to improvements
in skills and competencies (London, 1989; London & Smither,
1999). They can impact professional growth by leading to improving marketability and promotability. Dawis and Lofquist (1984)
suggested in their theory of work adjustment that in the interest of
increasing one’s fit with the environment, an individual may
Marcia J. Simmering, Rucks Department of Management, E. J. Ourso
College of Business Administration, Louisiana State University; Jason A.
Colquitt, Department of Management, University of Florida; Raymond A.
Noe, Management and Human Resources Department, The Ohio State
University; Christopher O. L. H. Porter, Department of Management,
Texas A&M University.
A draft of this article was presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the
Academy of Management in Chicago, Illinois, August 1999. We thank
Amy Kristof-Brown, Kenneth G. Brown, Jeffery A. LePine, and Cheri
Ostroff for their helpful comments on a draft of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Marcia J.
Simmering, who is now at the Department of Management and Marketing,
College of Administration and Business, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, Louisiana 71272. E-mail: MJS@cab.latech.edu
Conscientiousness and Employee Development
Conscientious employees tend to be reliable, hardworking, selfdisciplined, and persevering (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Conscien954
RESEARCH REPORTS
955
Figure 1. Model summarizing study predictions. Dashed line represents administration of the SKILLSCOPE
instrument.
tiousness has been linked to a number of important job outcomes
(Barrick & Mount, 1991) but has yet to be explicitly linked to
employee development. However, Hall’s (1986) model of career
development suggests that achievement orientation, proactivity,
hardiness, and independence will improve an employee’s career
success. These traits are subsumed under the Conscientiousness
factor and support a relationship with employee development.
Surprisingly, empirical research examining the relationship between Conscientiousness and learning-related outcomes has
yielded inconsistent findings. Research has found positive relationships between Conscientiousness and goal commitment, motivation to learn, and learning (Barrick, Mount, & Strauss, 1993;
Colquitt & Simmering, 1998), all of which are necessary for
development to occur. Conversely, Martocchio and Judge (1997)
found a negative relationship between Conscientiousness and
learning, an effect that was mediated by self-deception. Specifically, conscientious individuals were more likely to believe they
were doing better than they truly were—a tendency that harmed
learning. LePine, Colquitt, and Erez (2000) also uncovered detrimental effects for Conscientiousness, with the trait being negatively related to posttraining performance in contexts requiring
adaptability.
Two meta-analyses have added to the equivocal results regarding the relationship between Conscientiousness and learningrelated outcomes. Barrick and Mount’s (1991) meta-analysis on
the Big Five linked Conscientiousness to job proficiency (␳ ⫽ .23)
and training proficiency (␳ ⫽ .23). However, Colquitt, LePine, and
Noe (2000) conducted a meta-analytic review of the training
literature that included Conscientiousness and several training
outcomes (e.g., declarative knowledge and skill acquisition). Their
review yielded ␳ ⫽ ⫺.01 for Conscientiousness and declarative
knowledge and ␳ ⫽ ⫺.05 for Conscientiousness and skill acquisition. The results of both meta-analyses showed that sampling and
measurement error could not fully explain the variance in effect
sizes, suggesting that moderators may affect the relationships
between Conscientiousness and learning-related outcomes.
The Moderating Role of Person–Environment Fit
Many researchers agree that to fully understand and predict
employee behavior, one must examine both the person and the
context (e.g., Chatman, 1989; Roberts et al., 1978). A key issue in
the present study was identifying a potential moderator of the
relationship between Conscientiousness and employee development. We focused on person– environment fit as that moderator.
Whereas Conscientiousness can provide the resources for development (in the form of self-discipline, perseverance, etc.), person–
environment misfit can provide the need for development, as
development activities can be used to proactively restore fit.
Person– environment fit can be generally defined as the compatibility between individuals and the environments in which they
work. Although person– environment fit has traditionally been
examined in terms of its direct effects on outcomes such as work
attitudes, strain, and turnover (e.g., Chan, 1996; Chatman, 1991;
Edwards & Harrison, 1993; Posner, 1992; Posner, Kouzes, &
Schmidt, 1985), recent work has begun to examine fit as a moderator of individual difference effects. Kristof (1996) suggested
that individual differences and fit may interact in their effects on
outcomes. For example, Smith and Rogg (2000) conducted two
studies showing that cognitive ability had a more positive relationship with sales performance when misfit between an employee’s
need for and the presence of unique task–reward characteristics of
the job existed.
Person– environment fit has been operationalized in many ways,
including person– organization fit (e.g., Kristof, 1996) and person–
job fit (e.g., Edwards, 1991). Research on fit has also examined fit
between personality and organizational culture (e.g., Chatman &
Barsade, 1995; Day & Bedeian, 1991; Downey, Hellriegel, &
956
RESEARCH REPORTS
Slocum, 1975) and between individuals’ needs and abilities and
job characteristics (e.g., Edwards & Harrison, 1993). Much of this
research has followed Schneider’s (1987) attraction-selectionattrition (ASA) model, in which he posits that employees are
attracted to organizations that provide a high level of fit, are then
selected by organizations that perceive this fit, and subsequently
leave the organizations if misfit occurs. The ASA model implies
that fit results in positive outcomes and that misfit results in
negative outcomes. Because the ASA model has guided most of
the fit research to date, empirical studies have attempted to demonstrate these effects. For example, several studies have linked fit
to positive work attitudes (e.g., Posner, 1992; Posner et al., 1985),
whereas others have linked misfit to strain and withdrawal (Chan,
1996; Chatman, 1991; Edwards & Harrison, 1993).
By its very nature, the ASA framework deemphasizes the possibility that individuals who experience misfit may change themselves (or their environments) rather than self-selecting out of their
organizations. This is unfortunate because it portrays employees as
reactive rather than proactive. Our contention was that conscientious individuals, when faced with misfit, will respond by proactively engaging in development to improve their fit. We examined
this prediction using needs–supplies fit as the operationalization of
person– environment fit. Needs–supplies fit occurs when a person’s job supplies the characteristics that meet his or her needs
(e.g., Chatman, 1991; Posner, 1992; Posner et al., 1985).
We chose to examine the needs and supplies of autonomy
because research has lacked a systematic investigation of characteristics relevant across a broad range of jobs. Autonomy, defined
as “the degree to which the job provides substantial freedom,
independence, and discretion to the individual in scheduling the
work and in determining the procedures to be used in carrying it
out” (Hackman & Oldham, 1980, p. 79), is an important form of fit
for several reasons. First, development is often triggered by the
existence of too much or too little autonomy, as can be seen in
many models of career progression (e.g., Hall, 1986). Similarly,
reviews of the literature indicate that development can be used to
attain more discretion and control in the future or to cope with
existing levels of job responsibility (e.g., Noe, Wilk, Mullen, &
Wanek, 1997).
Autonomy is also one of the most commonly examined job
characteristics in the person– environment fit literature (e.g., Edwards & Harrison, 1993; Edwards & Rothbard, 1999; Kulik,
Oldham, & Hackman, 1987). Thus, using it in the present study
provides a bridge to research in the area. Moreover, autonomy fit
should become increasingly important as decision making and
control get pushed to lower levels of an organization (Motowidlo
& Schmit, 1999). This trend makes it more likely that some
employees will feel that they have too much autonomy, whereas
others will respond to their newfound control with the desire to
gain more control.
Theoretical Grounding
Our prediction that autonomy misfit will moderate the relationship between Conscientiousness and development can be supported with two different literatures: proactive socialization and
situational strength. Proactive socialization researchers argue that
new employees can engage in specific on-the-job behaviors that
can help improve their skills, increase their understanding of
organizational roles and norms, and build a supportive network of
work relationships (Ashford & Black, 1996; Morrison, 1993; Saks
& Ashforth, 1996; Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). These
behaviors, which can supplement the organization’s existing programs and rituals, include information seeking, feedback seeking,
goal setting, networking, negotiating, framing, practicing desired
behaviors, tracking progress, and self rewarding. The use of such
strategies has been shown to predict task mastery, role clarity,
social integration, anxiety, intrinsic motivation, coping ability, job
satisfaction, and withdrawal (Ashford & Black, 1996; Morrison,
1993; Saks & Ashforth, 1996; Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller,
2000).
Proactive socialization and employee development both involve
the use of self-managed behaviors for improving job skills and
conditions (though proactive socialization focuses exclusively on
newcomers). In fact, many of the actual behaviors are similar,
particularly goal setting, feedback setting, practicing desired behaviors, and tracking progress. Wanberg and Kammeyer-Mueller
(2000) found a significant correlation between Conscientiousness
and two of four proactive behaviors, but its effects were nonsignificant after controlling for other individual and contextual variables. In reflecting on these nonsignificant findings, Wanberg and
Kammeyer-Mueller speculated that “conscientious individuals
may have a tendency to be more confident in socialization experiences and may feel less of a need to seek out information and
feedback” (p. 382).
In other words, conscientious individuals might possess the
resources for proactive behaviors—like socialization or development— but might not see the need for them. We argue that person–
job misfit, with respect to autonomy, could supply that need.
Ashford and Black (1996) showed that autonomy needs (labeled
desire for control in their study) were one trigger of proactive
socialization behaviors. This supports the notion that autonomy
misfit could trigger conscientious individuals to use their perseverance and self-reliance to engage in development activities.
The idea that misfit amplifies the Conscientiousness–
development relationship is also consistent with situational
strength theory (Mischel, 1977; Weiss & Adler, 1984). Mischel
(1977) described strong situations as those in which appropriate
behaviors are clear, skill requirements are uniformly met, and
assessments of the work environment do not vary. Interindividual
variability is low in strong situations, preventing personality variables from predicting behavior. In contrast, weak situations are
marked by cases in which appropriate behaviors are unclear, some
skill requirements may be lacking, and perceptions of the work
environment vary. Here, interindividual variability is high, allowing personality– behavior correlations to emerge.
We hypothesized that the existence of person–job misfit should
create a circumstance in which appropriate behaviors are unclear,
skill requirements may be unmet, and assessments of the work
environment may vary. If so, then the responses of careful, reliable, hardworking, ambitious, and self-reliant individuals will be
more distinct from the responses of careless, undependable, lazy,
and helpless individuals, to use McCrae and Costa’s (1987) conscientiousness descriptors. In contrast, we hypothesized that the
presence of person–job fit should constrain interindividual variability to a greater degree, weakening the Conscientiousness–
development relationship. Thus, as shown in Figure 1, we predicted the following:
RESEARCH REPORTS
Hypothesis 1: The relationship between Conscientiousness
and employee development will be moderated by person–
environment fit, such that the relationship will be more positive where misfit exists for needs and supplies of autonomy.
In stating the above hypothesis, it is important for us to note that
misfit can exist when an employee has too little autonomy and
when an employee has too much autonomy. Both circumstances
constitute weak situations, and both could create the need for
development. Too little autonomy could trigger development activities as a means of attaining more important work assignments
that supply more discretion and control. Too much autonomy
could trigger development activities as a means of honing one’s
skills to cope with job requirements. Unfortunately, research on fit
and stress suggests that development may not occur in the latter
situation. Excess job supplies have been associated with increased
tension, role overload, and role conflict (Edwards, 1996), which
can reduce commitment, well-being, and satisfaction (Bedeian &
Armenakis, 1981; Parasuraman & Alutto, 1984). Development
would likely be impractical in such circumstances, because it
would simply create more demands on the employee. Nonetheless,
our study tested the relationship between Conscientiousness and
development as moderated by both types of misfit.
Employee Development and Subsequent Fit
Implicit in our proposal that conscientious individuals will respond to misfit by engaging in development is the assumption that
development will improve fit at a subsequent time. To support a
relationship between development and subsequent fit, we again
turn to proactive socialization. Saks and Ashforth’s (1997) review
of the socialization literature introduced a multilevel process
model of organizational socialization. In that model, Saks and
Ashforth argued that proactive strategies and behaviors would lead
to increases in information and learning, which would then lead to
improved person–job fit. Kristof (1996) made a similar prediction
in her review of the fit literature.
We hypothesized that developmental activities could alter subsequent person–job fit via two mechanisms. For individuals with
too little autonomy, the completion of coursework, job challenges,
and assessment activities could lead to more job latitude, more
enriching assignments, or more promotions, thereby increasing
supplies of autonomy. For individuals with too much autonomy,
those same activities could improve self-confidence to the point at
which more autonomy is needed and desired. In one case, fit is
restored by the alteration of subsequent supplies; in the other case,
it is restored by the alteration of subsequent needs. Thus, as shown
in Figure 1, we predicted the following:
Hypothesis 2: Employee development will be associated with
increased subsequent needs–supplies fit in terms of
autonomy.
957
1993; London & Beatty, 1993). It typically involves providing employees
with feedback about their skill strengths and weaknesses from multiple
sources, including supervisors, peers, and themselves (Hazucha et al.,
1993). The intervention was used in this study to create the opportunity for
developmental activities while preserving natural variance that could be
predicted by Conscientiousness and misfit.
Participants
Participants were 83 managers working in 21 different industries; 78%
were male, and 22% were female. They each had an average of six people
who directly reported to them, and they each had worked in an average of
two companies prior to working for their current employer. Average tenure
in the current organization was over 5 years, and the average age of the
sample was 32 years. This sample is particularly appropriate for this study
because researchers in the areas of person– environment fit and development have long emphasized the need for samples that span several organizations and occupations (e.g., Downey et al., 1975). The study participants were enrolled in an executive Masters of Business Administration
(MBA) program at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.
Procedure
The procedure included three phases: before, during, and after the 360°
feedback was received by the participants. The procedures in these phases
are described in Table 1.
Prefeedback phase. Upon acceptance to the MBA program, participants took part in a variety of orientation exercises, including one related
to their Managerial Skills course. This exercise required participants to
complete a 360° feedback instrument, called SKILLSCOPE (2002),1 which
was provided and scored by the Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, North Carolina. Participants rated their own skills and weaknesses
and asked their supervisors and peers to complete the instrument. Several
weeks later, the participants completed a measure of person– environment
fit and gave their managers a measure of development activities. On this
measure, managers were asked to evaluate the development activities of the
study participants over the past 6 months. The measures were mailed back
to the researchers and were not shared with the participants. These surveys
provided a baseline measure of person– environment fit and development.
Feedback phase. Approximately 1 month later, participants received
an individualized SKILLSCOPE feedback report during the first week of
their Managerial Skills course. The instructor explained how to interpret
the feedback report, described various types of developmental activities,
and explained how to create a development plan. This communication
process was similar to that used by most organizations, in which only
employees see the results and in which subsequent development is not
closely monitored by the organization (London & Smither, 1995).
Postfeedback phase. Six months after the initial measure of fit and
employee development, participants were again asked to assess their fit.
They also completed a measure of Conscientiousness. As before, participants were asked to give a questionnaire to their manager to evaluate the
participants’ development activities. The managers’ survey responses were
mailed directly to the researchers and were never seen by the study
participants.
Measures
Method
Conscientiousness. Conscientiousness was measured using Costa and
McCrae’s (1992) 48-item revised NEO Personality Inventory scale (1 ⫽
We conducted this study in the context of a 360° feedback intervention.
Using 360° feedback to facilitate development is an approach that has
increased in popularity in recent years (Hazucha, Hezlett, & Schneider,
1
Center for Creative Leadership, CCL, its logo, and SKILLSCOPE are
registered trademarks owned by the Center for Creative leadership. Copyright 2003 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved.
Study Context
RESEARCH REPORTS
958
Table 1
Timeline of Study Procedures
organization (i.e., tenure) and the number of employees who directly
reported to them in their present position (i.e., span of control).
Study phase
Procedure
Prefeedback
Participants completed the SKILLSCOPE instrument.
Participants completed initial person–environment fit
measures.
Supervisors rated initial development.
SKILLSCOPE feedback results were returned.
Participants again completed person–environment fit
measures, along with the Conscientiousness
measure.
Supervisors again rated development.
Feedback
Postfeedback
Note. Time period between pre- and postfeedback survey administrations
was 6 months. SKILLSCOPE (2002) is a 360° feedback instrument that
was provided and scored by the Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, North Carolina.
strongly disagree to 5 ⫽ strongly agree). Responses to this Conscientiousness measure tend to be remarkably stable over time, with test–retest
reliability estimated at .83 (Costa & McCrae, 1992).
Autonomy needs. A five-item scale, based on the independence subscale of the Work Aspect Preference Scale (Pryor, 1998), measured the
amount of autonomy the employees felt was acceptable in their current jobs
(one component of autonomy fit). Employees answered the question “How
much of the characteristic do you personally feel is acceptable?” for items
including “The opportunity to work as fast or as slowly as I like” and “The
opportunity to do my work in my own way” (1 ⫽ none at all to 5 ⫽ very
much).
Autonomy supplies. A five-item scale, based on the independence
subscale of the Work Aspect Preference Scale (Pryor, 1998), measured the
amount of autonomy the employees felt was present in their current jobs,
which is the other component of autonomy fit). Employees answered the
question “How much of the characteristic is present in your job now?,”
referencing the same five items used in the Autonomy Needs scale (1 ⫽
none at all to 5 ⫽ very much).
Development. The participants’ managers were asked to rate the degree to which the participants were involved in development activities over
the previous 6 months using 10 items from Noe’s (1996) study. Participants’ managers were told “The purpose of this survey is to collect
information about the extent to which
has participated in
various types of career development activities during the past six months.
Please use the following scale in making your responses: (1 ⫽ little to 5 ⫽
a great deal).” Items began with “To what extent has this individual during
the past six months:” and included endings such as “asked you for projects,
committee work, or special assignments in order to improve skills or
acquire new ones,” “sought information from you regarding personal
and/or professional development courses,” “asked you for feedback regarding his/her skill weaknesses (other than the SKILLSCOPE feedback you
recently completed),” and “changed an aspect of his/her behavior because
of feedback.”
360° feedback. Although not relevant to the hypotheses, it was necessary to control for the SKILLSCOPE feedback participants received between the two fit and development measurement administrations. The
SKILLSCOPE feedback focused on broad managerial skills such as managing conflict, negotiating, building relationships, selecting and developing
people, developing influence, being flexible, and coping with pressure. For
each item, respondents indicated whether the item was a strength (1) or an
area where there was development needed (0). Our analyses controlled for
the supervisor, peer, and self SKILLSCOPE ratings.
Other controls. Because participants’ tenure and span of control were
expected to correlate with autonomy supplies and development, participants indicated the number of months they had worked at their present
Results
Descriptive Statistics
The means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations for
all variables are shown in Table 2. Notably, the zero-order relationship between Conscientiousness and postfeedback development (r ⫽ .17, p ⬍ .10, one-tailed) fell between Barrick and
Mount’s (1991) ␳ ⫽ .23 for training proficiency and Colquitt et
al.’s (2000) ␳ ⫽ ⫺.01 and ␳ ⫽ ⫺.05 for declarative knowledge and
skill acquisition. Finally, only the self ratings in the SKILLSCOPE
feedback were significant predictors of subsequent development
(r ⫽ ⫺.33, p ⬍ .05, one-tailed), with lower self ratings associated
with increased subsequent development.
Conscientiousness and Misfit as Predictors of
Development
Hypothesis 1 predicted that the relationship between Conscientiousness and postfeedback development would be moderated by
autonomy fit, with Conscientiousness more positively related to
development for individuals experiencing misfit. To test this, we
analyzed fit as the interaction of two separate variables: prefeedback autonomy needs and supplies. By using the two fit components as separate variables in a moderated regression, we avoided
problems related to the use of difference scores (e.g., poor reliability, questionable construct validity, and difficulties in interpretability; Edwards, 1994; Edwards & Parry, 1993). One should recall
that we speculated that Conscientiousness would predict development more when individuals had too little autonomy than it would
when they had too much. This type of analysis allowed these
differences in types of fit and types of misfit to be directly
examined.
Thus, the test of Hypothesis 1 regressed postfeedback development onto the following variables in the following steps:
1.
tenure and span of control,
2.
supervisor, peer, and self SKILLSCOPE feedback,
3.
prefeedback development,
4.
Conscientiousness,
5.
the prefeedback needs and supplies fit components,
6.
the 2 two-way interaction terms using Conscientiousness
and the fit components,
7.
the two-way interaction between the fit components, and
8.
the three-way interaction of Conscientiousness and the fit
components.
Support for Hypothesis 1 would be found if the interaction term in
the final step contributed significant incremental variance explained, with the pattern of the effect as predicted.
The regression results are shown in Table 3. As shown in the
eighth step, the prefeedback autonomy fit interaction did interact
12
—
11
—
.45**
RESEARCH REPORTS
959
Table 3
Moderated Regression Results for Hypothesis 1
Development
(postfeedback)
␤
⌬R2
R2
.02
.08
.01
.01
⫺.06
⫺.04
⫺.33*
.12*
.13
Development (prefeedback)
.46*
.19*
.32*
Conscientiousness
.20*
.04*
.36*
(.71)
.06
.10
1
Tenure
Span of control
(.67)
.44**
.03
.19*
2
Supervisor 360° feedback
Peer 360° feedback
Self 360° feedback
(.84)
⫺.02
.25**
.06
.09
3
4
(.97)
⫺.33**
.11
.02
.10
⫺.07
5
6
(.74)
⫺.10
⫺.01
.01
.02
.03
.12
6
7
8
9
10
Regression step
7
(.96)
.24**
.18*
⫺.13
⫺.13
.01
⫺.13
.07
⫺.19
.13
.02
.38*
Conscientiousness ⫻ Autonomy Needs
Conscientiousness ⫻ Autonomy Supplies
⫺.02
.04
.00
.38*
Autonomy Needs ⫻ Autonomy Supplies
⫺.04
.00
.38*
Conscientiousness ⫻ Autonomy
Needs ⫻ Autonomy Supplies
⫺.39*
.05*
.43*
Note. N ⫽ 66 after listwise deletion.
* p ⬍ .05.
Note. N ⫽ 66 after listwise deletion. Numbers in parentheses represent coefficient alpha reliabilities.
* p ⬍ .10, one-tailed. ** p ⬍ .05, one-tailed.
(.74)
⫺.11
.03
⫺.11
.10
.53**
.62**
.12
.15
(.58)
.62**
⫺.09
.07
⫺.06
.02
.53**
.34**
.28**
.34**
(.84)
.15
.14
⫺.02
⫺.07
⫺.25**
.51**
.07
.23**
⫺.01
⫺.00
(.88)
⫺.05
⫺.04
⫺.14
.09
.01
.04
.17*
⫺.08
⫺.10
.03
.01
0.32
0.77
0.53
0.75
0.15
0.14
0.16
0.80
0.53
0.68
4.26
18.44
3.58
2.86
3.57
3.23
0.84
0.53
0.77
3.03
3.67
3.22
5.43
5.98
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Conscientiousness
Development (prefeedback)
Autonomy needs (prefeedback)
Autonomy supplies (prefeedback)
Supervisor 360° feedback
Peer 360° feedback
Self 360° feedback
Development (postfeedback)
Autonomy needs (postfeedback)
Autonomy supplies (postfeedback)
Tenure
Span of control
SD
M
Variable
Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-Order Correlations
1
2
3
4
5
8
Autonomy needs (prefeedback)
Autonomy supplies (prefeedback)
with Conscientiousness in relating to development (⌬R2 ⫽ .05,
p ⬍ .05). One should note that although this interaction was
significant, the separate components of fit were not significantly
correlated with Conscientiousness; this indicates that it is indeed
the combination of fit and Conscientiousness that relates to development and not simply an increase in autonomy needed or autonomy supplied. The pattern of this effect can be seen in Table 4,
which lists the four possible configurations of autonomy fit: (a) fit
in which autonomy needs and supplies are both high; (b) misfit in
which supplies exceed needs; (c) misfit in which needs exceed
supplies; and (d) fit in which needs and supplies are both low.
These subgroups were formed by performing median splits of the
prefeedback autonomy needs and autonomy supplies variables.
Table 4 clearly shows that the correlation between Conscientiousness and development is higher where misfit exists (r ⫽ .36 and
Table 4
Correlation Between Conscientiousness and Development
Fit or misfit?
Fit
Misfit
Misfit
Fit
Fit type
High autonomy needs,
high supplies
Low autonomy needs,
high supplies
High autonomy needs,
low supplies
Low autonomy needs,
low supplies
rConscientiousness,development
.00
.36
.40
⫺.11
Note. Subgroups were created by performing median splits of the
prefeedback autonomy needs and autonomy supplies variables.
RESEARCH REPORTS
960
r ⫽ .40) than it is where fit exists (r ⫽ .00 and r ⫽ ⫺.11), thereby
supporting Hypothesis 1. Indeed, the misfit correlations exceeded
the corrected effect sizes from Barrick and Mount’s (1991) study,
whereas the fit correlations approximately matched Colquitt et
al.’s (2000) results.
Development as a Predictor of Subsequent Fit
Hypothesis 2 predicted that postfeedback development would be
associated with increased postfeedback autonomy fit. As with the
other analyses, we operationalized fit using autonomy needs and
supplies as two separate variables. Many of the same criticisms
leveled against difference scores as independent variables are also
relevant for difference scores as dependent variables. Edwards
(1995) outlined a procedure that allows the components of a
difference score to remain distinct while being used as a dependent
variable. The procedure uses multivariate regression that, like
multivariate analysis of variance, allows one to test the effects of
predictors on two separate variables while conducting multivariate
tests of the association between the predictors and components as
a set.
We assessed the effect of postfeedback development on postfeedback autonomy needs and supplies (as a set) while controlling
for tenure, span of control, and prefeedback autonomy needs and
supplies. The multivariate effect of a predictor can be gauged using
several statistics, and we reported Hotelling’s Trace, Wilks’s
lambda, and eta squared. Multivariate regression further allows for
the decomposition of the overall effect, allowing insight into which
component(s) of fit are affected and how. For example, if participants’ initial misfit was characterized by too little autonomy, fit
could be restored by increasing subsequent autonomy supplies.
The multivariate regression results are presented in Tables 5
and 6. The test of Hypothesis 2 can be seen in the Development
(postfeedback) row of Table 5. Postfeedback development did
have a statistically significant multivariate effect on the two autonomy fit components, F(2, 60) ⫽ 3.00, p ⬍ .05. These results
can be interpreted as univariate regression output would be interpreted. The observed multivariate effect was primarily due to
development’s positive relationship with postfeedback autonomy
supplies (␤ ⫽ .21, p ⬍ .05). Thus, development improved fit
primarily by increasing supplies of autonomy.
Discussion
This study examined the relationships among Conscientiousness, person– environment fit, and development in a longitudinal
study, using employees from several different organizations. Notably, conscientious individuals were more likely to engage in
development activities but only when they felt that their jobs were
not meeting their autonomy needs. Considering the entire sample,
the relationship between Conscientiousness and development only
approached significance, falling between the levels of Barrick and
Mount’s (1991) and Colquitt et al.’s (2000) meta-analyses. The
correlation was much higher for those experiencing misfit.
The strongest correlation between Conscientiousness and development was exhibited by participants who possessed too little
autonomy. Our results showed that fit improved for those individuals who engaged in development, because development activities
led to increased supplies of autonomy in their jobs. Autonomy
supplies increased by .13 from prefeedback to postfeedback conditions for the most conscientious individuals who engaged in the
most development (those above the median on Conscientiousness
and development). These supply changes illustrate the exchange
nature of development from the individual and organizational
perspective, as participation in development seemed to be met with
the employees’ increased ability to do work at the pace and in the
manner of their choosing. Because the development did nothing to
alter employees’ autonomy needs, the result was improved person–
environment fit. This supports our prediction that conscientious
individuals can use development as a means of proactively reducing misfit, rather than reactively turning over, as the ASA model
would predict.
Although the Conscientiousness–fit interaction results supported our predictions, conscientious individuals who possessed
too much autonomy also tended to engage in development activities. This was somewhat surprising, because research on person–
job fit has linked excess supplies to increased tension, role overload, and role conflict (Edwards, 1996). Our results suggest that
development activities could further exacerbate misfit for those
individuals by increasing supplies and thereby widening the
needs–supplies gap. It may be that employees undertook development to increase their skills to cope with job demands. However,
if development ultimately results in even more supplies of autonomy, a vicious cycle could be created. Thus, future research should
continue to examine how conscientious individuals react when
faced with too much autonomy.
These results make theoretical contributions to both the person–
environment fit and employee development literatures. Research
on fit has cast the employee in a reactive light in which misfit is
met with strain and eventual turnover. The socialization literature
offers an important lesson in this regard, as reactive research on
Table 5
Multivariate Regression Results for Hypothesis 2
Tests of multivariate effects on autonomy needs and autonomy
supplies (postfeedback)
Variable
Hotelling’s
trace
⌳
F
␩2
Tenure
Span of control
Autonomy needs (prefeedback)
Autonomy supplies (prefeedback)
Development (postfeedback)
.01
.00
.17
.48
.10
.99
.99
.86
.68
.91
0.38
0.04
5.19*
14.53*
3.00*
.01
.00
.15*
.32*
.09*
RESEARCH REPORTS
961
Table 6
Multivariate Regression Parameter Estimates for Hypothesis 2
Autonomy needs
(postfeedback)
Variable
␤
Autonomy supplies
(postfeedback)
t
␤
t
Parameter estimates
Tenure
Span of control
Autonomy needs (prefeedback)
Autonomy supplies (prefeedback)
Development (postfeedback)
⫺.08
.03
.43*
.26*
⫺.06
⫺0.70
0.29
3.15*
1.98*
⫺0.60
⫺.07
.02
⫺.02
.65*
.21*
⫺0.67
0.15
⫺0.14
5.36*
2.22*
Note. N ⫽ 68 after listwise deletion.
* p ⬍ .05.
organizational rituals and practices has been balanced by proactive
research on newcomers’ strategies and behaviors (Ashford &
Black, 1996; Morrison, 1993; Saks & Ashforth, 1996; Wanberg &
Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). Just as newcomers can rely on goal
setting, feedback seeking, networking, practicing behaviors, and
tracking progress to increase person–job fit, established employees
can use similar strategies to improve their fit levels.
Moreover, this study is unique in that we did not view fit as
uniformly positive, because fit seemed to stifle conscientious individuals’ developmental activities. We therefore suggest that fit
researchers devote further attention to the potential “dark sides” of
fit (e.g., Schneider, Smith, & Goldstein, 1994). Similarly, our
study provides evidence that Conscientiousness is not always
positively related to work behaviors, particularly those relevant to
learning (Colquitt et al., 2000; LePine et al., 2000; Martocchio &
Judge, 1997). Scholars may need to rely more on Person ⫻
Situation approaches to illustrate when Conscientiousness can and
cannot have beneficial effects.
From an applied perspective, although organizations’ exuberance to “win the war for talent” may have them focusing on using
resources for formal development programs (e.g., mentoring and
job experiences), our results suggest that informal development
behaviors are also important. Behaviors such as asking for project
or committee work and seeking feedback regarding skill weaknesses may have a payoff in increased person–job fit. To the extent
that fit reduces (rather than facilitates) turnover, informal development behaviors can result in cost savings for the organization.
This study has several strengths: a field sample with participants
from many different organizations in several different industries, a
longitudinal design that controlled for initial development and fit
levels, and the use of multiple sources to prevent same source bias.
Nevertheless, our study has some limitations that should be noted.
Our sample had an average age of 32 years, so most participants
were in the relatively early stages of their organizational progression. The extent to which our findings would generalize to older
employees at later career stages is an empirical question. In addition, the employees who participated in the study were enrolled in
an executive MBA program and were, in effect, already engaged in
one form of development prior to beginning the study. The nature
of this sample may have created some degree of range restriction
in development and Conscientiousness. The adult norms for conscientiousness are 123.10, with a standard deviation of 17.6 (Costa
& McCrae, 1992). In our sample, Conscientiousness item sums
were slightly higher (170.29), with some range restriction
(SD ⫽ 15.94). This difference in means and standard deviations is
to be expected, because the participants in this study came from an
executive population. However, this range restriction could only
prevent us from detecting statistically significant effects, so our
results are likely to be conservative tests of our hypotheses.
References
Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational
entry: The role of desire for control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,
199 –214.
Baldwin, T. T., & Padgett, M. Y. (1993). Management development: A
review and commentary. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.),
International review of industrial and organizational psychology
(Vol. 8, pp. 35– 85). New York: Wiley.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44,
1–26.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. P. (1993). Conscientiousness
and performance of sales representatives: Test of the mediation effects
of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 715–722.
Bedeian, A. G., & Armenakis, A. A. (1981). A path-analytic study of the
consequences of role conflict and ambiguity. Academy of Management
Journal, 24, 417– 425.
Birdi, K., Allan, C., & Warr, P. (1997). Correlates and perceived outcomes
of four types of employee development activity. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82, 845– 857.
Chan, D. (1996). Cognitive misfit of problem-solving style at work: A facet
of person– organization fit. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68, 194 –207.
Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A
model of person– organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14,
333–349.
Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and
socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459 – 484.
Chatman, J. A., & Barsade, S. G. (1995). Personality, organizational
culture, and cooperation: Evidence from a business simulation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 423– 443.
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative
theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years
of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 678 –707.
Colquitt, J. A., & Simmering, M. J. (1998). Conscientiousness, goal
962
RESEARCH REPORTS
orientation, and motivation to learn during the learning process: A
longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 654 – 665.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The NEO PI–R professional
manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work
adjustment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Day, D. V., & Bedeian, A. G. (1991). Work climate and Type A status as
predictors of job satisfaction: A test of the interactional perspective.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 38, 39 –52.
Downey, H. K., Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (1975). Congruence
between individual needs, organizational climate, job satisfaction and
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 149 –155.
Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person–job fit: A conceptual integration, literature
review, and methodological critique. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson
(Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology
(Vol. 6, pp. 283–357). New York: Wiley.
Edwards, J. R. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational behavior
research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 58, 51–100.
Edwards, J. R. (1995). Alternatives to difference scores as dependent
variables in the study of congruence in organizational research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64, 307–324.
Edwards, J. R. (1996). An examination of competing versions of the
person– environment fit approach to stress. Academy of Management
Journal, 39, 292–339.
Edwards, J. R., & Harrison, R. V. (1993). Job demands and worker health:
Three-dimensional reexamination of the relationship between person–
environment fit and strain. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 628 – 648.
Edwards, J. R., & Parry, M. E. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression
equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1577–1613.
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (1999). Work and family stress and
well-being: An examination of person– environment fit in the work and
family domains. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77, 85–129.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA:
Addison Wesley.
Hall, D. T. (1986). Breaking career routines: Midcareer choice and identity
development. In D. T. Hall (Ed.), Career development in organizations
(pp. 120 –159). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hazucha, J. R., Hezlett, S. A., & Schneider, R. J. (1993). The impact of
360-degree feedback on management skills development. Human Resource Management, 32, 325–351.
Hedge, J. W., & Borman, W. C. (1995). Changing conceptions and practices in performance appraisal. In A. Howard (Ed.), The changing nature
of work (pp. 451– 482). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hesketh, B., & Neal, A. (1999). Technology and performance. In D. R.
Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance:
Implications for staffing, motivation, and development (pp. 21–55). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person– organization fit: An integrative review of its
conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1– 49.
Kulik, C. T., Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. R. (1987). Work design as an
approach to person– environment fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 278 –296.
LePine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to changing
task contexts: Effects of general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and
openness. Personnel Psychology, 53, 563–594.
London, M. (1989). Managing the training enterprise. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
London, M., & Beatty, R. W. (1993). 360-degree feedback as a competitive
advantage. Human Resource Management, 32, 353–372.
London, M., & Mone, E. M. (1999). Continuous learning. In D. R. Ilgen &
E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implications
for staffing, motivation, and development (pp. 119 –153). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
London, M., & Smither, J. (1995). Can multisource feedback change
perceptions of goal accomplishment, self-evaluations, and performancerelated outcomes? Theory-based applications and directions for research.
Personnel Psychology, 48, 803– 840.
London, M., & Smither, J. (1999). Career-related continuous learning:
Defining the construct and mapping the process. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.),
Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 17, pp.
81–121). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Martocchio, J. J., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Relationship between conscientiousness and learning in employee training: Mediating influences of
self-deception and self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,
764 –773.
Maurer, T. J., & Tarulli, B. (1994). Investigation of perceived environment,
perceived outcome, and person variables in relationship to voluntary
development activities by employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 3–14.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1987). Validation of the five-factor
model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90.
Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current
issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333–352). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Morrison, E. W. (1993). Longitudinal study of the effects of information
seeking on newcomer socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,
173–183.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Schmit, M. J. (1999). Performance assessment in
unique jobs. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature
of performance (pp. 56 – 85). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Noe, R. A. (1996). Is career management related to employee development
and performance? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 119 –133.
Noe, R. A. (1999). Employee training and development. Burr Ridge, IL:
Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
Noe, R. A., & Wilk, S. L. (1993). Investigation of the factors that influence
employees’ participation in development activities. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78, 291–302.
Noe, R. A., Wilk, S. L., Mullen, E. J., & Wanek, J. E. (1997). Employee
development: Issues in construct definition and investigation of antecedents. In J. K. Ford (Ed.), Improving training effectiveness in work
organizations (pp. 153–192). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Parasuraman, S., & Alutto, J. A. (1984). Sources and outcomes of stress in
organizational settings: Toward the development of a structural model.
Academy of Management Journal, 27, 333–351.
Posner, B. Z. (1992). Person– organization values congruence: No support
for individual differences as a moderating influence. Human Relations, 45, 351–361.
Posner, B. Z., Kouzes, J. M., & Schmidt, W. H. (1985). Shared values
make a difference: An empirical test of corporate culture. Human Resource Management, 24, 293–309.
Pryor, R. G. L. (1998). Manual for the Work Aspect Preference Scale.
Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Roberts, K. H., Hulin, C. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1978). Developing an
interdisciplinary science of organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1996). Proactive socialization and behavioral self-management. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 301–325.
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Organizational socialization:
Making sense of the past and present as a prologue for the future.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 234 –279.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437– 453.
Schneider, B., Smith, D. B., & Goldstein, H. W. (1994, August). The “dark
RESEARCH REPORTS
side” of “good fit.” Paper presented at the 54th Annual Meeting of the
National Academy of Management, Dallas, TX.
SKILLSCOPE. (2002). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Smith, R., & Rogg, K. L. (2000). Subjective person–job fit and sales
performance: Its predictive validity and role as a moderator of the
cognitive ability–performance relationship. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Wanberg, C. R., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2000). Predictors and
outcomes of proactivity in the socialization process. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85, 373–385.
Weiss, H. M., & Adler, S. (1984). Personality and organizational behavior.
963
In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational
behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 1–50). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning
employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management
Review, 26, 179 –201.
Received August 5, 2002
Revision received December 19, 2002
Accepted January 28, 2003 䡲