Broad versus Narrow Traits
Broad versus Narrow Traits:
Assessing the Bandwidth-Fidelity Tradeoff at the Team-level
Thomas A. O’Neill
Natalie J. Allen
The TeamWork Lab
Department of Psychology
The University of Western Ontario, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Thomas O’Neill
Email:toneill7@uwo.ca
1
Broad versus Narrow Traits
2
Broad versus Narrow Traits:
Assessing the Bandwidth-Fidelity Tradeoff at the Team-level
It has long been known that personality is a consistent predictor of job-related criteria
(Tett, Jackson, & Rothsein, 1991). Researchers have struggled, however, to find robust relations
between personality and team performance (Kroeck & Brown, 2004). One potential limitation in
the current literature is an over-emphasis on the “Big Five” framework of personality. Indeed,
research has found that more precisely defined “narrow traits” can account for as much or more
variance in general human behavior (Paunonen & Ashton, 2001), workplace criteria (e.g.,
Dudley, Orvis, Lebiecki, & Cortina, 2006), and team outcomes (e.g., LePine, 2003).
Extending this thinking to the team level, LePine (2003) found that the narrower facets of
conscientiousness (i.e., dependability and achievement) were related to team adaptability in the
predicted directions. That is, teams higher on dependability were less able to adapt to
unanticipated changes in the task context, while teams that were more achievement-oriented
were more adaptable. These findings highlight the potential value of using clearly defined
narrow traits in the prediction of teamwork instead of relying solely on the Big Five. Although
LePine’s research hints at the usefulness of narrow traits in predicting teamwork, these more
specific traits have not been explicitly compared to broad factors in a team context. The purpose
of the present study, therefore, is to examine the relative contribution of narrow to broader traits
to the prediction of team process and outcome variables.
Broad versus Narrow Traits
3
Methodology and Hypotheses
Data were collected from 69 student teams enrolled in a four-month engineering course.
We systematically selected and measured five relationship-oriented (i.e., sociability, affiliation,
cooperation, aggression, defendence) and task-oriented narrow traits (i.e., endurance,
achievement, cognitive structure, organization, and innovation), in addition to assessing the Big
Five. We also measured two relationship-oriented emergent states (i.e., team cohesion,
relationship conflict) and one task-oriented emergent state (i.e., group potency). Finally, we
collected project grades assigned to teams as an indicator of team performance. The project was
a 10-page engineering design report that described a prototype each team generated.
Note that all of our criterion variables, with the exception of team performance, were
aggregated to the team level. Statistics were calculated to justify aggregation (i.e., we calculated
rwg(j), ICC(1), and ICC(2) indices). Their respective references, reliabilities, mean rwgs, ICC(1),
ICC(2), and number of teams dropped from a given analysis due to low rwg values are in Table 1.
We strictly adhered to the .70 cutoff for rwg(j) values, which resulted in 1 team being removed
from the group potency analyses, 1 for team cohesion, and 3 for relationship conflict.
The number of teams included in each analysis also varied as a function of missing data.
Fourteen teams were missing data on emergent states; two teams were missing data on team
performance; and one team was missing personality data. Taking both missing data and low rwg
values in account, the n for analyses involving team performance was 66; the n for analyses
involving team cohesion and potency was 53; and the n for analyses involving relationship
conflict was 51.
Our general hypothesis was that the five traits we selected as relationship-oriented would
predict relationship-oriented emergent states (i.e., team cohesion, relationship conflict) as well,
Broad versus Narrow Traits
4
or better, than the Big Five. Similarly, we hypothesized that the five traits we selected as taskoriented would predict the task-oriented emergent state (i.e., group potency) and outcome (i.e.,
team performance) as well, or better, than the Big Five.
Four operationalizations of personality at the group level are commonly used in the
literature: mean, variance, maximum, minimum (for example, see Barrick et al., 1998). For
relationship-oriented narrow-trait predictors, operationalizations of personality involved only the
mean. As for the task-oriented narrow-trait predictors, we used maximum organization,
maximum cognitive structure, mean achievement, mean endurance, and maximum innovation. In
terms of the Big Five, we hypothesized that mean conscientiousness, variance of neuroticism,
variance of extraversion, and maximum openness would predict task-related criteria. On the
relationship side, we used variance of conscientiousness, mean neuroticism, mean agreeableness,
and mean extraversion for the hypotheses.
Analyses and Results
The analyses consisted of hierarchical multiple regressions (see Table 2 - 9). For each
criterion, we first entered narrow traits in Block 1, followed by broad factors in Block 2. That
procedure tests the predictive validity of broad factors over and above narrow traits. To assess
the incremental validity of narrow traits, we also included analyses where we entered the Big
Five in Block 1, followed by the narrow traits in Block 2. Finally, because the Big Five were
operationalized according to our general hypothesis (e.g., using mean versus maximum or some
other conceptualization), we wanted to assess the maximum predictive validity of the Big Five
by selecting the “best Big Five” predictors of each criterion. Specifically, the Big Five factor
operationalizations that had the strongest correlations with the criterion were entered. To be
included in the analysis, the relation between each Big Five factor and criterion needed to be in a
Broad versus Narrow Traits
5
theoretically meaningful direction, and only one Big Five trait operationalization could be
selected for each trait (e.g., both mean conscientiousness and maximum conscientiousness could
not be selected).
The results in Tables 2 – 9 warrant at least two observations. First, the narrow traits
accounted for significant variance when entered in Block 1 for all four criteria. The Big Five,
however, were significant for two of the four criteria (i.e., for hypothesized Big Five) and three
of the four criteria (i.e., for the best Big Five). Second, the narrow traits accounted for significant
incremental variance in four of the eight analyses, whereas the Big Five never accounted for
incremental variance.
Discussion and Conclusion
The results of this study support the notion that narrow traits can account for as much, or
more, variance in team-related variables than the Big Five. These findings build on previous
research that found conscientiousness, as a broad factor, to actually obscure meaningful
relationships compared to a more fine-grained, narrow trait level of analysis (LePine, Colquitt, &
Erez, 2000; LePine, 2003). Our findings show that narrow personality traits that are clearly
defined and conceptually meaningful can compete with the Big Five.
Note, however, that these narrow traits must be selected systematically, perhaps by using
what Schneider, Hough, and Dunnette (1996) refer to as the construct-oriented approach. Stated
simply, that approach stipulates that predictor traits should be selected based on their conceptual
and theoretical link to the criterion variables. Indeed, our results suggest that this approach may
be well suited, if not imperative, for aligning predictors with criterion at the team level in a
meaningful, replicable, and theoretically sound way. Based on our review of the literature and
the results reported in this study, we noted the following:
Broad versus Narrow Traits
1) Broad personality factors, such as the Big Five, are not likely to consistently
predict criteria unless the dimensions of each can be theoretically linked;
2) Precisely-defined, narrow personality traits are easier to interpret, as are their
relations with team outcomes, primarily because theoretical linkages are tighter;
3) Narrow personality traits can predict team-level criteria equally as well as, or
better than, the Big Five when the narrow traits are selected carefully.
6
Broad versus Narrow Traits
7
Table 1
Criterion variables requiring statistical justification for aggregation, and their respective scale
references, reliability, mean rwg, ICC(1), ICC(2), and the number of teams dropped from the
analyses due to low rwg.
Variable
Cohesion
Reference
Waldman
et al., 2004
Potency
Guzzo et
al., 1993
Relationship Jehn, 1995
Conflict
Reliability
Mean rwg
ICC(1)
ICC(2)
.85
.93
.43
.75
Number of
teams where
rwg > .70
1
.90
.92
.29
.61
1
.94
.94
.45
.76
3
Broad versus Narrow Traits
8
Table 2
Multiple Regression Analyses for the Incremental Prediction of Potency
Personality Dimensions
β
R2∆
Adj. R2∆
df
F
Hypothesized Big Five over narrow traits
Block 1
Maximum cognitive structure .25
Maximum organization
.12
Mean achievement
-.05
Mean endurance
.26
Maximum innovation
.08
Block 2
Mean conscientiousness
SD extraversion
SD neuroticism
Maximum openness
Best Big Five over narrow traits
Block 1
Maximum cognitive structure
Maximum organization
Mean achievement
Mean endurance
Maximum innovation
Block 2
Maximum conscientiousness
Mean agreeableness
Maximum extraversion
Maximum neuroticism
.23
.15
5, 47
2.83*
.08
.02
4, 43
1.28
.19
.15
5, 47
2.83*
5, 42
2.13
-.01
.10
-.32*
.22
.25
.12
-.05
.26
.08
-.07
.16
.17
-.34*
.16
*p < .05, **p < .01
.09
Broad versus Narrow Traits
9
Table 3
Multiple Regression Analyses for the Incremental Prediction of Potency
Personality Dimensions
β
R2∆
Adj. R2∆
df
F
Narrow traits over hypothesized Big Five
Block 1
Mean conscientiousness
.16
SD extraversion
.08
SD neuroticism
-.32*
Maximum openness
.29*
Block 2
Maximum cognitive structure
Maximum organization
Mean achievement
Mean endurance
Maximum innovation
Narrow traits over best Big Five
Block 1
Maximum conscientiousness
Mean agreeableness
Maximum extraversion
Maximum neuroticism
Block 2
Maximum cognitive structure
Maximum organization
Mean achievement
Mean endurance
Maximum innovation
*p < .05, **p < .01
.18
.11
4, 48
2.65*
.13
.06
5, 43
1.66
.28
.21
5, 47
3.65**
.11
.04
5, 42
1.45
.27
.01
-.09
.28
-.02
.12
.09
.19
-.32*
.33*
-.03
-.02
.17
-.11
Broad versus Narrow Traits
10
Table 4
Multiple Regression Analyses for the Incremental Prediction of Relationship Conflict
Personality Dimensions
β
R2∆
Adj. R2∆
df
F
.32
.24
5, 45
4.22**
.10
.05
4, 41
1.78
.32
.24
5, 45
4.22**
.11
.04
5, 40
1.52
Hypothesized Big Five over narrow traits
Block 1
Mean affiliation
-.62**
Mean sociability
.25
Mean cooperativeness
-.13
Mean defendence
.02
Mean aggression
.25
Block 2
Mean conscientiousness
Mean agreeableness
Mean extraversion
Mean neuroticism
Best Big Five over narrow traits
Block 1
Mean affiliation
Mean sociability
Mean cooperativeness
Mean defendence
Mean aggression
Block 2
SD conscientiousness
Mean agreeableness
Maximum extraversion
Maximum neuroticism
*p < .05, **p < .01
-.24
.01
.20
.33*
-.62**
.25
-.13
.02
-.08
-.08
.01
.00
.29*
Broad versus Narrow Traits
11
Table 5
Multiple Regression Analyses for the Incremental Prediction of Relationship Conflict
Personality Dimensions
β
R2∆
Adj. R2∆
df
F
.25
.18
4, 46
3.76**
Narrow traits over hypothesized Big Five
Block 1
Mean conscientiousness
-.28*
Mean agreeableness
-.27*
Mean extraversion
-.01
Mean neuroticism
.29*
Block 2
Mean affiliation
Mean sociability
Mean cooperativeness
Mean defendence
Mean aggression
-.48*
.08
.00
.16
.28
.2.45
Narrow traits over best Big Five
Block 1
SD conscientiousness
Mean agreeableness
Maximum extraversion
Maximum neuroticism
Block 2
Mean affiliation
Mean sociability
Mean cooperativeness
Mean defendence
Mean aggression
*p < .05, **p < .01
.11
5, 41
2.45*
-.166
-.27
-.10
.26*
.28
.20
5, 45
3.48**
.15
.09
5, 40
2.01
-.47*
.20
-.12
.08
.27
Broad versus Narrow Traits
12
Table 6
Multiple Regression Analyses for the Incremental Prediction of Team Performance
Personality Dimensions
β
R 2∆
Adj. R2∆
df
F
Hypothesized Big Five over narrow traits
Block 1
Maximum cognitive structure .23
Maximum organization
.07
Mean achievement
.36**
Mean endurance
-.35*
Maximum innovation
.10
Block 2
Mean conscientiousness
SD extraversion
SD neuroticism
Maximum openness
Best Big Five over narrow traits
Block 1
Maximum cognitive structure
Maximum organization
Mean achievement
Mean endurance
Maximum innovation
Block 2
Maximum conscientiousness
Mean agreeableness
Variance extraversion
Minimum neuroticism
*p < .05, **p < .01
.19
.13
5, 60
2.90*
.04
-.01
4, 56
.76
.19
.13
5, 60
2.90*
.10
.05
4, 56
1.90
-.04
.19
-.02
.08
.23
.07
.36**
-.35*
.10
.09
.11
.14
-.21
Broad versus Narrow Traits
13
Table 7
Multiple Regression Analyses for the Incremental Prediction of Team Performance
Personality Dimensions
β
R2∆
Adj. R2∆
df
F
Narrow traits over hypothesized Big Five
Block 1
Mean conscientiousness
.06
Mean agreeableness
.21
Mean extraversion
-.06
Mean neuroticism
.13
Block 2
Maximum cognitive structure
Maximum organization
Mean achievement
Mean endurance
Maximum innovation
Narrow traits over best Big Five
Block 1
Maximum conscientiousness
Mean agreeableness
Maximum extraversion
Maximum neuroticism
Block 2
Maximum cognitive structure
Maximum organization
Mean achievement
Mean endurance
Maximum innovation
*p < .05, **p < .01
.07
.01
4, 61
1.15
.17
.10
5, 56
2.43*
.13
.07
4, 61
2.30
.16
.10
5, 56
2.52*
.22
.09
.35*
-.32*
.02
.13
.17
.16
-.13
.19
.07
.33*
-.36*
-.11
Broad versus Narrow Traits
14
Table 8
Multiple Regression Analyses for the Incremental Prediction of Team Cohesion
Personality Dimensions
β
R2∆
Adj. R2∆
df
F
.24
.24
5, 45
2.84*
.06
-.01
4, 41
.91
.24
.155
5, 45
2.84*
.13
.07
4, 41
2.03
Hypothesized Big Five over narrow traits
Block 1
Mean affiliation
.65**
Mean sociability
-.30
Mean cooperativeness
.09
Mean defendence
-.14
Mean aggression
-.08
Block 2
Maximum conscientiousness
Mean agreeableness
Mean extraversion
Mean neuroticism
Best Big Five over narrow traits
Block 1
Mean affiliation
Mean sociability
Mean cooperativeness
Mean defendence
Mean aggression
Block 2
Mean agreeableness
SD neuroticism
Mean extraversion
SD conscientiousness
*p < .05, **p < .01
-.24
.24
.03
-.14
.65**
-.30
.09
-.14
-.08
.30
-.19
-.37*
.11
Broad versus Narrow Traits
15
Table 9
Multiple Regression Analyses for the Incremental Prediction of Team Cohesion
Personality Dimensions
β
R2∆
Adj. R2∆
df
F
Narrow traits over hypothesized Big Five
Block 1
SD conscientiousness
.11
Mean agreeableness
.32*
Mean extraversion
-.11
Mean neuroticism
-.19*
.15
Block 2
Mean affiliation
Mean sociability
Mean cooperativeness
Mean defendence
Mean aggression
Block 2
Mean affiliation
Mean sociability
Mean cooperativeness
Mean defendence
Mean aggression
*p < .05, **p < .01
4, 46
2.02
5, 41
2.68*
.79**
-.31
.05
-.14
.09
.21
Narrow traits over best Big Five
Block 1
Mean agreeableness
Maximum conscientiousness
Maximum extraversion
Maximum neuroticism
.08
.14
.26
.11
.05
-.18
.17
.10
5, 46
2.32*
.13
.05
5, 41
1.55
.63**
-.38
.11
-.09
.05
Broad versus Narrow Traits
16
References
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability
and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83, 377-391.
Dudley, N. M., Orvis, K. A., Lebiecki, & Cortina, J. M. (2006). A meta-analytic investigation of
conscientiousness in the prediction of job performance: Examining the intercorrelations
and the incremental validity of narrow traits. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 40-57.
Kroeck, K. G., & Brown, K. W. (2004). Work applications of the Big Five model of personality.
In J. C. Thomas (Vol. Ed.) & M. Hersen (Ed. in Chief), Comprehensive handbook of
psychological assessment: Industrial and organizational assessment (Vol. 4, pp. 109129). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Lepine, J. A. (2003). Team adaptation and postchange performance: Effects of team composition
in terms of members’ cognitive ability and personality. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88(1), 27-39.
Lepine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to changing task contexts: Effects
of general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Personnel
Psychology, 53, 563-593.
Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big five factors and facets and the prediction of
behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 411-424.
Schneider, R. J., Hough, L. M., & Dunnette, M. D. (1996). Broadsided by broad traits: How to
sink science in five dimensions or less. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 17(6), 639655.
Broad versus Narrow Traits
Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job
performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703-742.
17