HUMAN PERFORMANCE, 13(1), 23–46
Copyright © 2000, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Managerial Performance Development
Constructs and Personality Correlates
James M. Conway
Department of Psychology
Central Connecticut State University
The goals of this study were (a) to identify managerial performance development constructs through factor analysis, (b) to understand their motivational determinants using personality correlates, and (c) to examine differences between rating sources.
Factor analyses identified 5 developmental constructs: Interpersonal Effectiveness,
Willingness to Handle Difficult Situations, Teamwork and Personal Adjustment,
Adaptability, and Leadership and Development. Comparisons with Borman and
Brush’s (1993) managerial performance megadimensions showed that the developmental constructs overlapped with but also added to the day-to-day performance domain. Each of the five factors showed a distinct pattern of personality correlates. Personality correlates supported hypotheses based on socioanalytic theory regarding the
motive to get along with others (e.g., Interpersonal Effectiveness correlated with empathy and agreeableness) versus the motive to get ahead (e.g., Willingness to Handle
Difficult Situations correlated with potency measures). Rating sources (supervisor,
peer, subordinate, and self) showed some differences in their results.
Several published works have addressed the constructs that make up the managerial job performance domain (e.g., Borman & Brush, 1993; McCauley, Lombardo,
& Usher, 1989; Tornow & Pinto, 1976). These studies have tended to focus on job
analysis-type data to identify the behaviors and activities managers engage in.
Borman and Brush’s work in this area is probably the most comprehensive because
they summarized and analyzed performance dimensions generated from critical incidents and task statements in a wide sample of organizations. They developed a set
of 18 managerial “megadimensions” such as Training, Coaching, and Developing
Subordinates.
Requests for reprints should be sent to James M. Conway, Department of Psychology, Central Connecticut State University, New Britain, CT 06050–4010.
24
CONWAY
RESEARCH ON HOW MANAGERS DEVELOP
McCauley et al. (1989) suggested that focusing specifically on how managers develop provides a different perspective as compared to focusing on what managers
do (Borman & Brush’s, 1993, focus). This perspective is potentially useful for two
reasons: (a) it is particularly relevant to personal development interventions such as
multisource feedback and (b) it can potentially identify important constructs
missed by analyses of managers’ behaviors and activities. This study used an instrument called Benchmarks (McCauley et al., 1989), specifically developed based
on a critical incidents analysis of developmental experiences.
Benchmarks is based on a series of studies described by Lindsey, Homes, and
McCall (1987) and McCall, Lombardo, and Morrison (1988). In these studies executives were asked to describe several “key events” (i.e., critical incidents) in
their careers—events that made a difference in their managerial approaches. The
executives were also asked to describe the lessons they learned from each event.
This research effort was based on incidents from a wide variety of organizations.
McCauley et al. (1989) described how the data were used to form the “Skills and
Perspectives” section (the largest section) of Benchmarks. There are 16 Skills and
Perspectives dimensions, listed and defined in Table 1 (Center for Creative Leadership, 1995; McCauley et al., 1989). McCauley et al. noted that Benchmarks includes dimensions not found in other performance feedback instruments, such as
Straightforwardness and Composure, and Acting With Flexibility (balancing opposite qualities—e.g., being both tough and compassionate), which is an interpersonal skill. The Benchmarks dimensions have good validity; McCauley et al.
reported that supervisor ratings on Benchmarks for several organizations were significantly related to a variety of criteria, including a measure of organizational advancement 24 to 30 months after Benchmarks was administered.
With regard to higher order developmental constructs underlying Benchmarks,
McCauley et al. (1989) identified three using a post hoc conceptual analysis: Respect for Self and Others, Adaptability, and Molding a Team. Respect for Self and
Others included learning to show compassion, to be straightforward, and to put
people at ease. McCauley et al. argued that Self-Awareness and Balance Between
Personal Life and Work belong in this category too because an appreciation of the
self is important for dealing well with others. Adaptability is referred to in current
Benchmarks literature as “Meeting Job Challenges.” Meeting Job Challenges included developing resourcefulness, decisiveness, the drive to do what it takes to
accomplish goals, and the ability to learn quickly. Finally, Molding a Team, referred to in current literature as “Leading People,” included learning to identify,
recruit, and hire talented staff; to set a developmental climate; to confront problem
subordinates; and other team-related behaviors. McCauley et al. argued that
Leading People depends to some extent on the skills and perspectives inherent in
the other two constructs but also adds unique team-oriented components.
MANAGERIAL PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENT
25
TABLE 1
Benchmarks Skills and Perspective Dimensions
1. Resourcefulness (17 items): Can adapt to changing and often ambiguous circumstances, think
strategically, make good decisions under pressure, set up complex work systems, engage in flexible problem-solving behavior, and work effectively with higher management.
2. Doing Whatever it Takes (14 items): Has perseverance and focus in the face of obstacles, e.g.,
taking charge, facing difficult situations with guts and tenacity.
3. Being a Quick Study (4 items): Quickly masters new technical and business knowledge.
4. Decisiveness (4 items): Prefers quick and approximate actions to slow and precise ones in many
management situations.
5. Leading Employees (13 items): Delegates to employees effectively, broadens their opportunities,
and acts with fairness toward them.
6. Setting a Developmental Climate (5 items): Provides a challenging climate to encourage
employees’ development.
7. Confronting Problem Employees (4 items): Acts decisively and with fairness when dealing with
problem employees.
8. Work Team Orientation (4 items): Accomplishes tasks through managing others.
9. Hiring Talented Staff (3 items): Hires talented people for his or her team.
10. Building and Mending Relationships (11 items): Knows how to build and maintain working
relationships with coworkers and external parties (e.g., finding common ground, negotiating,
understanding others, and getting cooperation in non-authority relationships).
11. Compassion and Sensitivity (4 items): Shows genuine interest in others and sensitivity to
employees’ needs.
12. Straightforwardness and Composure (6 items): Is honorable and steadfast (e.g., relies on
fact-based positions and doesn’t blame others for mistakes).
13. Balance Between Personal Life and Work (4 items): Balances work priorities with personal life
so that neither is neglected.
14. Self-Awareness (4 items): Has an accurate picture of strengths and weaknesses and is willing to
improve.
15. Putting People at Ease (4 items): Displays warmth and a good sense of humor.
16. Acting With Flexibility (5 items): Can behave in ways that are often seen as opposites (e.g.,
being both tough and compassionate).
Note. This table is based on Center for Creative Leadership (1995) and McCauley, Lombardo, &
Usher (1989).
GOALS AND HYPOTHESES
Identifying Developmental Performance Constructs
My first goal in this study was to use factor analysis to determine whether
McCauley et al.’s (1989) three constructs optimally describe the performance development domain. A related goal was to examine how consistent the constructs
were across ratings by managers’ supervisors, peers, subordinates, and the managers themselves. Meta-analytic evidence on between-source correlations finds supervisor and peer ratings to be similar (Conway & Huffcutt, 1997; Harris &
26
CONWAY
Schaubroeck, 1988). However, these two meta-analyses showed that self-ratings
were not highly related to ratings by other sources, and Conway and Huffcutt
(1997) provided the same type of evidence for subordinate ratings. One study directly compared factor structures across sources, finding no difference for peers
and subordinates (Maurer, Raju, & Collins, 1998). Maurer et al. used a rating instrument containing only a single factor, team-building, and unlike this study did
not include supervisor or self-ratings.
Understanding Motivational Determinants by Examining
Personality Correlates
The second goal of this study was to evaluate the motivational determinants of performance development constructs using correlations with personality constructs.
Recent research has shown that there are clear patterns of performance–personality
relations, and that these relationships can help understand the motivational basis of
performance constructs (Hogan, 1998; Hogan, Rybicki, Motowidlo, & Borman,
1998). The personality measures used in this study were the California Psychological Inventory (CPI; Gough, 1987) and the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI;
Myers & McCaulley, 1985).
A promising theoretical framework for understanding performance development constructs is the socioanalytic approach to personality (Hogan & Shelton,
1998). According to socioanalytic theory, two primary motives driving behavior
are the desire to “get along” and the desire to “get ahead.” Getting along means
feeling liked and supported, whereas getting ahead means gaining power and control of resources (Hogan & Shelton, 1998). Interactions in work settings can be
seen as attempts to achieve one or both of these goals (Hogan et al., 1998; Hogan &
Shelton, 1998). Hogan and Shelton noted that some people are more motivated to
get along, whereas others are more motivated to get ahead and therefore different
people use different behavioral strategies.
The first performance development construct is Respect for Self and Others.
This highly interpersonal construct (including, e.g., Compassion and Sensitivity)
should be influenced by characteristics important for getting along. Therefore, Respect for Self and Others should be positively correlated with CPI Empathy (a social skill that should increase the ability to get along; Hogan, 1991) and MBTI
Thinking–Feeling (interpreted by McCrae & Costa, 1989, as a measure of agreeableness). McCauley et al. (1989) linked knowledge of self to mental health,
which is conceptually related to adjustment. Respect for Self and Others should
therefore be related to CPI Self-Control (Gough, 1987, provides evidence showing
that this dimension is correlated with measures of emotional stability).
The second performance development construct was Meeting Job Challenges.
This construct includes resourcefulness, decisiveness, the ability to learn quickly,
MANAGERIAL PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENT
27
and the drive and attitudes to do these things. Taking charge, overcoming obstacles, and being decisive should be related to the characteristics necessary to get
ahead rather than those necessary to get along. In a management situation one
characteristic that is probably important for getting ahead is potency. According to
Hough (1992), “Potency is defined as the degree of impact, influence, and energy
that one displays” (p. 144). Meeting Job Challenges should therefore correlate
positively with CPI Dominance.
The third performance development construct was Leading People, including
hiring, developing, and motivating subordinates. McCauley et al. (1989) suggested that Leading People depends partly on the first two constructs, Respect for
Self and Others and Meeting Job Challenges. Therefore, a manager’s standing on
Leading People reflects the characteristics necessary to get along and those necessary to get ahead. This balancing act should be predicted by “getting-along” dimensions such as CPI Empathy and “getting-ahead” dimensions such as CPI
Dominance.
Finally, differences between rating sources with respect to personality correlates were examined. These analyses were exploratory and there were no particular
hypotheses.
METHOD
Participants
A total of 2,110 managers from a variety of industries and management levels participated in a leadership development seminar. Each manager was rated on Benchmarks by at least one supervisor, one peer, and one subordinate as well as by himself or herself. Ratings were not used for any administrative decisions. Of the 2,110
managers, 1,830 completed the CPI and 1,567 completed the MBTI. The CPI and
MBTI were not used administratively. Because my goal was to factor analyze each
source’s ratings and make comparisons across sources, I included only one member
of each source (when there were multiple members from a source I randomly chose
one member).
Demographic data showed that participants represented many organizational
types (e.g., manufacturing, finance, public sector, nonprofit; 88% were from private for-profit organizations), functional areas (e.g., accounting, marketing), and
levels of management. Most managers were White (94%), male (70%), and had at
least a Bachelors degree (89%). The mean age was 42 years.
Instruments
Benchmarks. The Benchmarks Skills and Perspectives section contains 106
items (statements such as “has personal warmth”) forming 16 dimensions as de-
28
CONWAY
scribed in Table 1. The development of Benchmarks was described in detail by
McCauley et al. (1989), who reported coefficient alphas for supervisor ratings of
.75 or higher for each of the 16 dimensions. McCauley et al. also reported significant validity coefficients for predicting organizational advancement.
CPI. CPI Form 462 (Gough, 1987) includes 462 true–false items measuring
20 “folk constructs” (concepts people use in everyday language to describe themselves and others). Gough reported coefficient alphas for the CPI scales ranging
from .52 to .79. Only 19 of the CPI constructs were used in this study (data for Femininity/Masculinity were not available).
MBTI. The MBTI Form F (Myers & McCaulley, 1985) consists of 166 items,
of which 95 are scored. Although the MBTI is intended to measure personality
types, McCrae and Costa (1989) presented evidence that the MBTI measures continuous dimensions. Eight unipolar dimensions form four pairs (e.g., Extraversion
and Introversion), and the two unipolar dimensions in each pair are almost completely ipsative (McCrae & Costa, 1989). In this study I used four bipolar dimensions, each based on a combination of a pair of unipolar dimensions. McCrae and
Costa suggested that these four bipolar dimensions represent four of the Big Five
personality factors: MBTI Extraversion–Introversion (EI) measures extraversion,
MBTI Sensing–Intuition (SN) measures openness to experience, MBTI
Thinking–Feeling (TF) measures agreeableness, and MBTI Judging–Perceiving
(JP) measures conscientiousness. Myers and McCaulley reported coefficient
alphas ranging from .76 to .83.
Overview of Analyses
In this study I used a combination of exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) to identify higher order constructs underlying
Benchmarks. CFA is appropriate when a strong theory exists about the common
factor structure. Although McCauley et al. (1989) speculated on the higher order
constructs of Benchmarks, this is not strong enough to justify CFA. CFA also usually requires allowing a variable to load only on its hypothesized factor (Hurley et
al., 1997), even though a variable might load on multiple factors including
unhypothesized ones. EFA, on the other hand, is well-suited to identifying multiple
loadings.
I began with an EFA of the 16 supervisor-rated Benchmarks scales. I used the
resulting parameter estimates to derive a hypothesized model for the other three
sources. This hypothesized model was fit to each of the other sources’ ratings using CFA. These CFAs tested whether the factor structures of peer, subordinate,
and self-ratings were the same as that for supervisor ratings. Supervisors were used
as the “standard” because their ratings represent the most common and best ac-
MANAGERIAL PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENT
29
cepted way to measure work performance (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995), and because two meta-analyses have shown supervisor ratings to be more reliable than
peer ratings (Conway & Huffcutt, 1997; Viswesvaran, Ones, & Schmidt, 1996) or
subordinate ratings (Conway & Huffcutt, 1997).
Finally, factor scores based on the factor analyses were correlated with CPI and
MBTI dimensions.
RESULTS
Factor Analyses
EFA for supervisor ratings. Supervisor ratings on the 16 Benchmarks
Skills and Perspectives scales (means, standard deviations, and correlations appear
in Table 2) were subjected to a maximum likelihood EFA using squared multiple
correlations as prior communality estimates. Ford, MacCallum, and Tait (1986) and
MacCallum (1998) advocated this type of common factor analysis over techniques
such as principal components analysis. SAS Proc Factor software (Version 6; SAS
Institute, 1989) was used and a Promax oblique rotation was conducted. Criteria for
number of factors included the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA;
Browne & Cudeck, 1992), the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), freedom from improper
estimates (communalities greater than 1, which can occur with maximum likelihood
estimation), and the interpretability of the solution. A TLI of at least .90 is usually
taken to indicate acceptable fit. Browne and Cudeck suggested that RMSEA values
less than .05 indicate a close fit between the model and the data, and RMSEA values
less than .08 indicate reasonable fit. MacCallum (1998) further recommended examining confidence intervals for RMSEA to assess the fit statistic’s accuracy. Due
to the large sample size in this study all 90% confidence intervals were small, approximately .01 in width, and the intervals will not be reported further later.
The number of factors was determined by examining solutions with numbers of
factors ranging from one to six. The six-factor solution contained an estimated
communality greater than one, which can indicate poorly defined factors (e.g.,
only a single variable loading on a factor; McDonald, 1985).
One- and two-factor solutions showed large RMSEA values of .160 and .116,
respectively, and low TLI values of .71 and .85, respectively, necessitating the rejection of these models. The three-factor model showed a large RMSEA of .092
and a barely acceptable TLI of .90, indicating this model should also be rejected. It
is worth noting, however, that the factor structure for this model was very consistent with McCauley et al.’s (1989) hypothesized constructs.
Four- and five-factor solutions had reasonable RMSEA values (i.e., less than
.08) of .072 and .065, respectively, and relatively high TLI values of .94 and .95,
respectively. The five-factor solution had the lower RMSEA value, the higher TLI
value, and the more interpretable pattern of loadings (standardized regression co-
.53
.54
.62
.77
.57
.57
.71
.73
.64
.65
.61
.61
.75
.70
.77
.62
3.66
3.82
4.05
3.64
3.59
3.77
3.39
3.60
3.70
3.63
3.75
4.14
3.85
3.62
3.90
3.64
1. Resourcefulness
2. Doing Whatever it
Takes
3. Being a Quick Study
4. Decisiveness
5. Leading Employees
6. Setting a
Developmental
Climate
7. Confronting Problem
Employees
8. Work Team
Orientation
9. Hiring Talented Staff
10. Building/Mending
Relationships
11. Compassion and
Sensitivity
12. Straightforwardness
/Composure
13. Balance: Personal
Life and Work
14. Self-Awareness
15. Putting People at
Ease
16. Acting With
Flexibility
SD
M
Dimension
.69
.59
.36
.15
.45
.42
.52
.68
.38
.53
.64
.46
.67
.65
1.00
.78
1
.63
.51
.33
.06
.33
.35
.53
.51
.29
.56
.59
.65
.58
.66
1.00
2
.36
.32
.12
.09
.24
.16
.34
.32
.12
.31
1.00
.39
.35
.39
3
.31
.22
.11
.03
.08
.08
.31
.17
.14
.46
1.00
.25
.38
4
.76
.61
.52
.25
.47
.66
.55
.72
.63
.51
1.00
.80
5
.69
.53
.45
.15
.37
.59
.58
.59
.49
.49
1.00
6
.49
.37
.16
.11
.25
.27
.48
.35
.34
1.00
7
.47
.36
.32
.32
.30
.40
.41
.43
1.00
8
.48
.38
.28
.14
.25
.37
1.00
.39
9
.76
.65
.66
.21
.51
.61
1.00
10
TABLE 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Supervisor Ratings
.61
.51
.61
.27
.35
1.00
11
.48
.48
.30
.26
1.00
12
.24
.19
.23
1.00
13
.66
1.00
.46
14
.57
1.00
15
1.00
16
MANAGERIAL PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENT
31
efficients). I therefore accepted the five-factor solution, and the loadings and
uniquenesses (a uniqueness was calculated as 1 minus the communality) are
shown in Table 3. Factor correlations are shown in Table 4.
The fact that the RMSEA value was above .05 indicates that the model did not
fit extremely well. However, the poor results for the six-factor model suggest that
five factors is the most reasonable solution for these data.
CFA for peer, subordinate, and self-ratings. Next I applied the supervisor
parameter estimates shown in Tables 3 and 4 to peer, subordinate, and self-ratings
using CFA. Using LISREL 8 I fixed all model parameters at the supervisor values,
and then separately assessed the fit of this model to each source’s data. This represents the strongest possible form of CFA, in which no parameters are estimated
(Hurley et al., 1997). Peer and subordinate ratings showed acceptable levels of fit
with RMSEA values of .055 and .074, respectively, and TLI values of .97 and .95,
respectively. Self-ratings showed poor fit with a RMSEA of .086 and a TLI of .88.
I next estimated a less restricted model, in which the loadings and uniquenesses
were fixed but factor correlations were estimated. If a source showed better fit for
this model than for one with fixed factor correlations, then the factor correlations
for that source’s ratings differed from those for the supervisors’ ratings. Widaman
(1985) suggested that an increase in the TLI of .01 showed a better fit; no particular
standard for change in RMSEA is available.
Peers showed virtually no change in fit, indicating that the factor structure of
supervisor correlations is reasonable for peers as well. Subordinates did show
better fit for the model with estimated factor correlations, with a RMSEA of .065
(decrease of almost .01) and a TLI of .96 (increase of .01). Examination of the factor correlation estimates showed that they were significantly higher than the supervisor values. Supervisor factor correlations in Table 4 averaged .50, whereas the
subordinate factor correlations averaged .68, suggesting that the subordinates did
not distinguish as well between the different rating factors, resulting in the higher
factor correlations. Finally, self-ratings showed no improvement in fit when factor
correlations were estimated. The supervisor model is a poor fit for the self-ratings.
EFA for self-ratings. Due to the poorly fitting CFA model, I conducted
EFAs of the self-ratings. Results were surprisingly similar to those for supervisors.
A five-factor solution was found to be the best, and the pattern of loadings looked
quite similar to the supervisor loadings. The major differences appeared to be that
most self-loadings and self-factor correlations were lower than the corresponding
supervisor values.
Interpretation of the five-factor solution. The loadings in Table 3 show an
interpretable pattern. Factor labels and definitions appear in Table 5. The first factor is clearly an Interpersonal Effectiveness factor and corresponds reasonably well
Note.
.05
.14
–.16
.01
.17
.15
–.10
–.03
–.03
.64
.59
.20
.12
.40
.94
.47
Interpersonal
All loadings greater than .30 are italicized.
1. Resourcefulness
2. Doing Whatever it Takes
3. Being a Quick Study
4. Decisiveness
5. Leading Employees
6. Setting a Developmental Climate
7. Confronting Problem Employees
8. Work Team Orientation
9. Hiring Talented Staff
10. Building/Mending Relationships
11. Compassion and Sensitivity
12. Straightforwardness/Composure
13. Balance: Personal Life and Work
14. Self-Awareness
15. Putting People at Ease
16. Acting With Flexibility
Dimension
.15
.59
.08
.84
–.03
.12
.56
.02
.24
–.07
–.10
–.08
–.02
.09
.05
.18
Willingness
.10
–.13
–.19
–.08
.35
–.01
.39
.59
.17
.21
.04
.32
.35
.22
–.08
.24
Teamwork/Personal
Adjustment
Factor Loadings
.75
.35
.80
–.03
.12
.12
–.06
–.15
.09
.29
–.10
.28
–.10
.21
–.19
.12
Adaptability
TABLE 3
Factor Loadings and Uniquenesses for Supervisor Benchmarks Ratings
.02
.11
.07
–.06
.50
.67
.06
.31
.34
–.07
.38
–.08
–.03
–.03
.02
.10
Leadership
.12
.13
.45
.39
.11
.18
.47
.48
.57
.17
.38
.65
.87
.46
.32
.24
Uniquenesses
32
CONWAY
MANAGERIAL PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENT
33
TABLE 4
Factor Correlations for Supervisor Benchmarks Ratings
Factor
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Interpersonal
Willingness
Teamwork/personal adjustment
Adaptability
Leadership
1
2
3
4
5
1.00
.29
.59
.56
.54
1.00
.29
.62
.50
1.00
.54
.57
1.00
.52
1.00
to McCauley et al.’s (1989) Respect for Self and Others. This factor appears to reflect the desire to get along, and was defined by Putting People at Ease with a loading of .94. Other high-loading scales (loadings in parentheses) were Building and
Mending Relationships (.64), Compassion and Sensitivity (.59), Acting With Flexibility (.47; e.g., “is tough and at the same time compassionate”), and
Self-Awareness (.40; e.g., “does an honest self-assessment”). Scales with slightly
negative loadings were Being a Quick Study (–.16) and Confronting Problem Employees (–.10). The Interpersonal Effectiveness factor appears to tap effectiveness
at getting along and making others feel comfortable and supported, with some focus on using this behavior to achieve business goals (e.g., Building and Mending
Relationships; see the definition in Table 1). The small negative loading for Confronting Problem Employees indicates that the interpersonal skill measured by this
factor does not extend to difficult situations, however.
The self-oriented scales tended not to load on this factor; the exception was
Self-Awareness. McCauley et al. (1989) suggested that Straightforwardness and
Composure and Balance Between Personal Life and Work would also be a part of
this construct, but they were not. The main focus of the factor is on relationships
with others, with only a small focus on the self.
The second factor taps a Willingness to Handle Difficult Situations. The Willingness factor represents the volitional part of McCauley et al.’s (1989) Meeting
Job Challenges, the part dealing with the drive and attitudes needed to cope with
job demands (the other part of McCauley et al.’s construct was represented by this
study’s fourth factor). This behavior should be driven by a desire to get ahead. Decisiveness had the highest loading at .84. This scale taps a willingness to make decisions without hesitating. Doing Whatever it Takes (loading of .59) includes
perseverance, showing tenacity in difficult situations, taking responsibility, and
seizing opportunities. Confronting Problem Employees (loading of .56) includes,
for example, being quick to confront people presenting problems, and being decisive
with tough decisions such as layoffs. This factor taps the willingness to make difficult decisions and confront difficult situations without procrastination.
The third factor represents a sense of Teamwork and Personal Adjustment. The
highest loading scale was Work-Team Orientation (.59). The items comprising
34
CONWAY
TABLE 5
Factor Labels, Definitions, and Corresponding Borman and Brush (1993) Megadimensions
Factor 1: Interpersonal Effectiveness. Showing good social skill (e.g., tact, compassion, flexibility),
making others feel comfortable, and influencing others.
Borman and Brush Megadimensions (numbers are from Borman and Brush’s numbering system)
8. Maintaining good working relationships
17. Selling/influencing
Factor 2: Willingness to Handle Difficult Situations. Showing courage and perseverance, and having
the confidence and willingness to make decisions, confront problem employees, take charge, and
do whatever else is necessary in challenging situations.
Borman and Brush Megadimensions
12. Persisting to reach goals
13. Handling crises and stress
Factor 3: Teamwork and Personal Adjustment. Having an orientation toward working through the
team, and being well-adjusted (e.g., not obsessed with work; honest and not cynical or moody).
Borman and Brush Megadimensions
9. Coordinating subordinates and other resources to get the job done
Factor 4: Adaptability. Showing the ability to learn quickly and apply learning to think strategically,
work with executives, make good decisions, and solve problems.
Borman and Brush Megadimensions
1. Planning and organizing
6. Technical proficiency
10. Decision making/problem solving
15. Monitoring and controlling resources
18. Collecting and interpreting data
Factor 5: Leadership and Development. Hiring competent people and effectively providing them
with the opportunity and motivation to develop skills (e.g., delegating, giving decision-making
responsibility to subordinates).
Borman and Brush Megadimensions
2. Guiding, directing, and motivating subordinates and providing feedback
3. Training, coaching, and developing subordinates
11. Staffing
16. Delegating
Borman and Brush Megadimensions Not Corresponding to Benchmarks Factors
4. Communicating effectively and keeping others informed
5. Representing the organization to customers and the public
7. Administration and paperwork
14. Organizational commitment
this scale show that the focus is on the manager working through the team to accomplish goals rather than as an individual. Four scales had loadings ranging from
.39 to .32: Confronting Problem Employees (.39), Leading Employees (.35), Balance Between Personal Life and Work (.35), and Straightforwardness and Composure (.32). Doing Whatever it Takes and Being a Quick Study had lower, negative
loadings (–.13 and –.19, respectively).
MANAGERIAL PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENT
35
High loadings for Work-Team Orientation and Leading Employees (e.g., delegating, providing opportunities for decision making) indicate a clear orientation toward the team. Confronting Problem Employees is also fairly consistent with this
orientation. Doing Whatever it Takes and Being a Quick Study tend to focus on the
manager as an individual, so the small negative loadings are understandable. The
Balance and Straightforwardness scales that McCauley et al. (1989) associated with
the Interpersonal Effectiveness factor loaded moderately highly on this factor instead. These scales seem to indicate personal adjustment. The Work-Team Orientation scale can also be interpreted in terms of adjustment. It probably takes a certain
degree of self-control and perspective for a manager to allow a team to handle
important tasks, rather than trying to do things himself or herself. So, better adjusted
managers will probably find it easier to have a team orientation.
The fourth factor represents half of McCauley et al.’s (1989) Meeting Job
Challenges construct (the other half was represented by the second factor, Willingness to Handle Difficult Situations). The two scales with very high loadings
were Being a Quick Study (.80) and Resourcefulness (.75). Doing Whatever it
Takes had a loading of .35. Scales with small negative loadings were
Work-Team Orientation (–.15) and Putting People at Ease (–.19). McCauley et
al.’s original label of Adaptability seems appropriate here. The highest loading
scales indicate that a manager scoring high on this factor is one who can assimilate new information quickly and use it to think strategically, work with executives, solve problems, and make good decisions. The small negative loadings
indicate that Adaptability is an individually focused (rather than team- or
other-focused) factor. Although the Willingness factor was clearly volitional,
this study’s Adaptability factor was more oriented toward mental ability, an intellectual orientation, and creativity as well as the ability to withstand stress
(e.g., making decisions under pressure, part of the Resourcefulness scale).
The fifth factor is a Leadership and Development factor, similar to McCauley
et al.’s (1989) Leading People factor. As noted in the Introduction, this factor
probably requires both the desire to get along and the desire to get ahead. The
highest loadings were for Setting a Developmental Climate (.67) and Leading
Employees (.50), with moderately high loadings for Compassion and Sensitivity
(.38), Hiring Talented Staff (.34), and Work-Team Orientation (.31). Although
Factor 3 (Teamwork and Personal Adjustment) focuses more on the orientation
to work through the team rather than as an individual, the Leadership and Development factor focuses more on selecting, challenging, developing, and motivating subordinates. One way to think of this distinction is in terms of the tendency
to do something versus the effectiveness in doing it. Teamwork and Personal
Adjustment is oriented toward the tendency to work through a team, and Leadership and Development is oriented toward the effectiveness at working through
the team (e.g., motivating subordinates to take advantage of developmental opportunities and achieve goals).
36
CONWAY
Personality Correlates
I calculated factor scores using scoring coefficients from SAS (estimated by regression; Kim & Mueller, 1978), and then computed correlations between the
factor scores and CPI and MBTI dimensions. This was done both with the
sources kept separate and with the scores for each factor averaged across supervisors, peers, and subordinates. I excluded self-ratings for two reasons. First,
self-ratings showed a different factor structure so the factor scores would not be
comparable. Second, self-ratings showed considerably higher correlations with
personality measures than did other sources’ ratings. This was probably because
the personality measures were self-reports and the correlations were inflated by
shared method variance.
I corrected the correlations for unreliability in both the performance ratings and
the personality dimensions to get estimates of correlations between constructs. For
personality measures I used coefficient alphas reported in Gough (1987) and
Myers and McCaulley (1985). For performance factors I used interrater
reliabilities. To correct the scores aggregated across sources I used coefficient
alphas for each factor, computed by treating each source as an item. The resulting
reliabilities ranged from .59 (Interpersonal Effectiveness) to .44 (Leadership and
Development). To correct each individual source’s correlations the appropriate reliability would take into account consistency across ratings by members of the
same source. To calculate these reliabilities I used a somewhat larger database (N
= 2,809 managers) of which the current data were a subset. In the larger dataset
many managers had multiple raters for at least one source; using all these raters I
computed intraclass correlations (ICCs) separately by source for each factor. Supervisors had the highest ICCs, all above .40 except Leadership and Development
(ICC = .30). Peer and subordinate ICCs were generally in the .30s. For both
sources Leadership and Development had the lowest ICC (.25 for both sources).
Personality correlates of factor scores aggregated across sources.
For rating factors aggregated across sources, uncorrected and corrected correlations are shown in Table 6. Corrected correlations with absolute values of at least
.15 are italicized in Table 6. The Interpersonal Effectiveness factor, representing
the motive to get along, correlated most strongly with CPI Empathy and Tolerance,
and MBTI Thinking–Feeling (agreeableness; McCrae & Costa, 1989). These correlations were consistent with hypotheses for the “getting along” construct. This
factor also correlated with CPI Socialization and Self-Control, classified by Kamp
and Hough (1988) as measures of adjustment.
The Willingness factor, representing the motive to get ahead, correlated most
strongly with CPI Dominance, Independence, Self-acceptance, and Social Presence. These dimensions were classified by Kamp and Hough (1988) as measures
of potency. Potency measures were hypothesized to reflect the “getting ahead”
MANAGERIAL PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENT
37
TABLE 6
Personality Correlates of Rating Factor Scores Aggregated Across Sources
Performance Development Factor
Dimension
CPI
Dominance
Capacity for Status
Sociability
Social Presence
Self-Acceptance
Independence
Empathy
Responsibility
Socialization
Self-Control
Good Impression
Communality
Well-Being
Tolerance
Achievement via
Conformance
Achievement via
Independence
Intellectual Efficiency
Psychological-mindedness
Flexibility
MBTI
Extraversion–Introversion
Sensing–Intuition
Thinking–Feeling
Judging–Perceiving
Interpersonal
Willingness
Teamwork/
Adjustment
Adaptability
Leadership
–.02 (–.04)
.06 (.10)
.08 (.12)
.05 (.08)
.05 (.10)
–.07 (–.10)
.15 (.26)
.07 (.11)
.12 (.18)
.10 (.15)
.07 (.10)
.02 (.03)
.05 (.07)
.11 (.17)
.02 (.04)
.23 (.34)
.08 (.14)
.09 (.14)
.14 (.22)
.16 (.29)
.19 (.30)
.05 (.09)
.03 (.04)
–.05 (–.08)
–.10 (–.15)
–.02 (–.03)
–.05 (–.08)
.06 (.09)
.01 (.01)
.00 (–.01)
–.03 (–.05)
–.01 (–.01)
–.01 (–.02)
.00 (.00)
–.02 (–.03)
–.04 (–.06)
.06 (.10)
.06 (.09)
.14 (.22)
.14 (.22)
.07 (.11)
.03 (.05)
.09 (.14)
.10 (.16)
.07 (.10)
.05 (.09)
.05 (.10)
.01 (.01)
.04 (.06)
.04 (.08)
.06 (.10)
.05 (.09)
.12 (.21)
.08 (.14)
.09 (.15)
.06 (.09)
.00 (.00)
.09 (.15)
.13 (.23)
.07 (.12)
.07 (.12)
.06 (.12)
.07 (.13)
.07 (.14)
.08 (.17)
.05 (.08)
.12 (.23)
.05 (.10)
.07 (.12)
.04 (.07)
.03 (.06)
–.01 (–.02)
.06 (.11)
.08 (.14)
.02 (.04)
.07 (.10)
.01 (.01)
.08 (.13)
.12 (.22)
.09 (.15)
.03 (.04)
.01 (.02)
.08 (.12)
.04 (.06)
.01 (.01)
.01 (.01)
.08 (.12)
.02 (.03)
.00 (.00)
.12 (.20)
.10 (.17)
.05 (.08)
.06 (.11)
.05 (.10)
.05 (.10)
–.07 (–.09)
.03 (.04)
.20 (.30)
.09 (.13)
–.11 (–.17)
.10 (.15)
–.07 (–.11)
.06 (.08)
.03 (.04)
–.02 (–.03)
.09 (.13)
–.03 (–.04)
.03 (.05)
.09 (.15)
–.02 (–.04)
.02 (.04)
–.06 (–.10)
.11 (.18)
.10 (.17)
.04 (.07)
Note. Values in parentheses are correlations corrected for unreliability in both performance
development and personality constructs. Corrected correlations of at least .15 are italicized.
construct, and these results support that hypothesis. There were negative correlations with MBTI Extraversion–Introversion (indicating more extraverted behavior
associated with higher factor scores) and CPI Self-Control (indicating better adjusted managers performed more poorly on this dimension).
Teamwork and Personal Adjustment correlated most highly and positively with
adjustment-oriented personality constructs including CPI Socialization and
Self-Control. These results are consistent with Howard and Bray’s (1988) finding
that managers’ adjustment correlated negatively with impulsivity. The Teamwork
factor also correlated with CPI Tolerance.
38
CONWAY
Adaptability correlated with personality constructs indicating an intellectual,
creative orientation such as CPI Intellectual Efficiency and Achievement via Independence (according to Gough, 1987, both of these constructs were associated
with adjective checklist ratings such as intelligent, insightful, and clear-thinking),
and MBTI Sensing–Intuition (this dimension was interpreted by McCrae & Costa,
1989, as a measure of openness to experience). This factor also correlated with dependability and adjustment-oriented constructs such as CPI Responsibility,
Self-Control, Well-being, and Tolerance.
Leadership and Development, as expected, correlated with personality constructs representing both the motive to get along (CPI Empathy and MBTI
Thinking–Feeling) and the motive to get ahead (CPI Self-Acceptance, a measure
of potency). The predicted correlations with potency constructs were more
strongly confirmed for supervisor ratings and peer ratings separately, without subordinate ratings (e.g., CPI Sociability and Social Presence in addition to
Self-Acceptance correlated with supervisors and peers; see Table 7).
Personality correlates by source. Table 7 shows factor score–personality
correlations (corrected for unreliability) separately for supervisors, peers, and subTABLE 7
Personality Correlates of Rating Factor Scores By Source
(Correlations All Corrected for Unreliability)
Source
Factor
Interpersonal Effectiveness
CPI Empathy
CPI Socialization
CPI Self-Control
CPI Tolerance
MBTI Thinking-Feeling
MBTI Judging-Perceiving
Willingness to Handle Difficult Situations
CPI Dominance
CPI Capacity for Status
CPI Sociability
CPI Social Presence
CPI Self-Acceptance
CPI Independence
CPI Self-Control
MBTI Extraversion-Introversion
MBTI Sensing-Intuition
Supervisor
Peer
Subordinate
.26
.21
.16
.21
.31
.15
.27
.15
.10
.13
.27
.14
.18
.13
.14
.13
.23
.06
.31
.13
.16
.23
.31
.29
–.16
–.18
.15
.33
.16
.18
.25
.34
.29
–.17
–.18
.11
.28
.08
.06
.13
.13
.22
–.08
–.10
.15
(Continued)
MANAGERIAL PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENT
39
TABLE 7
(Continued)
Source
Factor
Teamwork and Personal Adjustment
CPI Empathy
CPI Socialization
CPI Self-Control
CPI Well-Being
CPI Tolerance
Adaptability
CPI Responsibility
CPI Socialization
CPI Self-Control
CPI Well-Being
CPI Tolerance
CPI Achievement via Independence
CPI Intellectual Efficiency
CPI Psychological-Mindedness
MBTI Sensing-Intuition
Leadership and Development
CPI Capacity for Status
CPI Sociability
CPI Social Presence
CPI Self-Acceptance
CPI Independence
CPI Empathy
CPI Socialization
CPI Well-Being
CPI Tolerance
CPI Achievement via Independence
CPI Intellectual Efficiency
MBTI Sensing-Intuition
MBTI Thinking-Feeling
Supervisor
Peer
Subordinate
.06
.25
.24
.18
.21
.17
.17
.15
.07
.11
.05
.17
.19
.12
.10
.20
.18
.16
.17
.26
.20
.16
.18
.15
.18
.06
.10
.09
.17
.17
.17
.12
.08
.15
.12
.13
.11
.16
.18
.17
.14
.15
.17
.15
.16
.24
.16
.24
.16
.18
.20
.20
.15
.19
.16
.10
.16
.17
.25
.11
.27
.06
.03
.12
.11
.07
.18
.17
.05
.05
.05
–.01
–.02
.13
.10
.08
.08
.11
.08
.13
.12
ordinates. Only personality constructs showing a corrected correlation of at least
.15 with at least one source are shown. The personality constructs correlating with
each factor tended to be the same across sources. However, supervisors usually
showed the highest correlations and subordinates usually showed the lowest. The
low subordinate correlations were especially noticeable for the Leadership and
Development factor.
There were some exceptions to the generally higher supervisor–personality correlations. Corrected peer–personality correlations equaled supervisor correlations
for the Willingness factor. And for each of the five factors, peers showed higher cor-
40
CONWAY
rected correlations with CPI Empathy than did either of the other sources. This suggests that peers are particularly attuned to and affected by empathic behaviors.
DISCUSSION
This study adds to a growing literature on the nature of job performance constructs
(e.g., Borman & Brush, 1993; Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, & Sager, 1993) and provides further evidence that when criterion constructs and personality constructs are
carefully matched, a clear, interpretable pattern of relations emerges (Hogan, 1998;
Hough, 1998). The performance constructs examined in this study particularly concerned the development of managerial performance, rather than performance activities contained in the normal workday (the concern of previous research; e.g.,
Borman & Brush, 1993). Factor analyses revealed five managerial performance development factors, and correlations with personality measures suggest underlying
motivational determinants.
Integration With Borman and Brush’s (1993) Managerial
Performance Megadimensions
The developmental perspective can augment and expand our understanding of the
concept of managerial performance in general. To accomplish this it is important to
examine how the constructs identified here fit in with previous literature. I will do
this by interpreting Borman and Brush’s (1993) 18 managerial performance
megadimensions in terms of this study’s five factors.
Table 5 shows relations between the five performance development factors and
Borman and Brush’s megadimensions. The Interpersonal Effectiveness factor
overlaps with two of the megadimensions: “Maintaining good working relationships” and “Selling/influencing.” For both taxonomies the emphasis is on establishing smooth relationships allowing the manager to gain cooperation and
achieve goals.
The Willingness factor also overlaps with two megadimensions: “Persisting to
reach goals” and “Handling crises and stress.” The “persisting” megadimension
overlaps with the “perseverance” aspect of Doing Whatever it Takes. The “handling crises” megadimension emphasizes quickly dealing with unexpected situations and tight deadlines. This is similar to Decisiveness and also overlaps with
Doing Whatever it Takes. This study’s Willingness factor has a unique focus on
Confronting Problem Employees.
The Teamwork factor has only a relatively weak link, to the “Coordinating subordinates and other resources to get the job done” megadimension. Working
through a team implies this type of coordination. Teamwork included a substantial
MANAGERIAL PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENT
41
adjustment component (e.g., Balance Between Personal Life and Work and
Straightforwardness and Composure) that did not overlap with the
megadimensions. The lack of overlap is probably due to the fact that adjustment
per se is not an activity. However, the Management Progress Study results
(Howard & Bray, 1988) suggested that, relative to poorly adjusted managers,
better adjusted managers tended to experience positive changes over time. These
changes included increased dominance, achievement motivation, and optimism.
They also found a positive, but low, relation between adjustment and organizational advancement.
The Adaptability factor shows some degree of overlap with five
megadimensions, all of which have to do with acquiring and applying
knowledge. The megadimensions are “Planning and organizing” (e.g., including “strategic planning; the Resourcefulness scale has a “thinking strategically”
component), “Technical proficiency,” “Decision making/problem solving,”
“Monitoring and controlling resources” (Resourcefulness includes items regarding building systems that are self-monitoring and can be managed by remote
control), and “Collecting and interpreting data” (the “problem-solving” component of Resourcefulness includes gathering information and analyzing situations).
Finally, the Leadership and Development factor overlaps with four
megadimensions: “Guiding, directing, and motivating subordinates and providing
feedback”; “Training, coaching, and developing subordinates”; “Staffing”; and
“Delegating.”
There were four megadimensions that did not fit into one of this study’s factors:
“Communicating effectively and keeping others informed,” “Representing the organization to customers and the public,” “Administration and paperwork,” and
“Organizational commitment.” McCauley et al. (1989) noted the lack of focus in
Benchmarks on administrative and communication skills, and speculated that
these skills are mastered early and are less important than other skills to managerial development. The “Representing” and “Organizational commitment”
megadimensions are job-dedication-oriented behaviors that probably reflect a
general tendency to be positive and conscientious. These tendencies are probably
well established before one attains a managerial position so they do not represent
common developmental experiences.
Each of the five performance development factors identified in this study
overlapped with at least one of Borman and Brush’s megadimensions. The
Teamwork and Personal Adjustment factor had the smallest amount of overlap,
with only one megadimension. This weak link suggests that the content of this
factor is relatively specific to a developmental focus (especially the “Personal
Adjustment” part of the factor). Some megadimensions did not overlap with any
of this study’s factors, indicating areas more important for day-to-day activities
than for performance development.
42
CONWAY
One limitation of this discussion is that these results may be somewhat specific
to the Benchmarks instrument. However, Benchmarks was carefully developed
based on extensive collection of information from managers in many organizations. This broad sampling should tend to mitigate instrument-specific biases and
promote generalizability.
Why Personality is Related to Managers’ Behavior
Personality correlates generally supported hypotheses. The Interpersonal Effectiveness factor correlated with CPI Empathy and MBTI Thinking–Feeling (interpreted here as agreeableness), providing evidence that this factor reveals the motive
to get along with others. The Willingness factor correlated with several potency-related CPI dimensions, suggesting that this factor reveals the motive to get
ahead. Interestingly, Willingness had a negative correlation with CPI Self-Control.
The Leadership and Development factor correlated with empathy and agreeableness, and also showed some relations with potency variables. Leadership and Development therefore shows both the motive to get along and the motive to get
ahead. The other two factors, Adaptability and Teamwork and Personal Adjustment, also showed distinct patterns of personality correlates.
Why are responses to personality instruments related to others’ ratings of managers? Multisource performance ratings reflect managers’ behaviors (and corresponding developmental needs). Hogan and Shelton (1998) suggested that a
person’s behaviors—what interactions a person enters into, and how the interactions are handled—are a function of identity, or the person’s hopes, dreams, fears,
and self-image. According to this view, a person is motivated to engage in behaviors consistent with his or her identity but not behaviors that are inconsistent. For
example, if I see myself as someone who is well-liked by others but who is not
comfortable leading others and making difficult decisions, I will be motivated to
engage in “getting along” behaviors such as showing empathy but I will not be motivated to engage in “getting ahead” behaviors such as taking charge. I might therefore be the kind of manager that Johnson, Schneider, and Oswald (1997) described
as an “amiable underachiever,” scoring high on performance ratings for
Interpersonal Effectiveness but low on performance ratings for Willingness to
Handle Difficult Situations.
Hogan and Shelton (1998) argued that responses to personality scales are another form of behavior that is governed by identity. The same identity that leads
to amiable underachievement would also therefore lead to high scores on personality scales like empathy and low scores on scales like dominance. In other
words, the personality–job performance relation exists because both personality
inventory responses and job behavior reflect the same underlying identities and
motives.
MANAGERIAL PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENT
43
Practical Implications of Personality Correlates:
Development and Selection
Personality measures, given a motivational interpretation, reflect why a manager
does things. Understanding a manger’s personality and motivations can be helpful in finding remedies for weaknesses. For example, the earlier section on personality–job performance relations suggests that amiable underachievers are
typically motivated to get along but not to get ahead. However, Hogan and
Shelton (1998) noted that others’ evaluations of our behavior depend on social
skill in addition to motivation. It is possible that rather than lacking the motivation to get ahead, an amiable underachiever is motivated to get ahead as well as
to get along, but lacks the social skills necessary for taking charge and for
leading others. Such a manager would be one whose idealized self-image
includes ambition and dominance, but whose attempts to lead forcefully are
ineffective.
The amiable underachiever’s problem could therefore be due to personality
(lack of motivation to get ahead), or due to lack of skill. This distinction is
important because, although personality is fairly stable, social skills are more
easily trained (Hogan & Shelton, 1998). Personality measures used in conjunction with multisource feedback ratings can help to identify the source of a manager’s weakness. If the “amiably underachieving” manager scores low on
personality scales indicating ambition and potency, then the source of the
underachievement would appear to be personality-related. If, on the other hand,
scores on these personality scales are high, the manager would probably like to
be an achiever, but needs work on social skills to carry out getting-ahead
behaviors effectively.
Another example involves a manager receiving low ratings on Leadership
and Development (shown to correlate with both getting along and getting ahead
personality constructs). The low ratings might be because of a lack of motivation to get along, a lack of motivation to get ahead, or both. Scores on relevant
personality constructs can help identify the underlying reason, leading to better
targeted developmental experiences (e.g., improving interpersonal effectiveness
vs. developing a more forceful motivational approach).
Personality measures are also useful for managerial selection. If the personality
measures are administered to managerial job candidates, the measures can be used
to predict which candidates will need more or less developmental work in a particular area. For example, candidates scoring high on getting along personality dimensions such as empathy are likely to need less work in the Interpersonal
Effectiveness area than low-scoring candidates. Selecting candidates who score
high on relevant personality measures should reduce the need for extensive
developmental work.
44
CONWAY
Rating Source Differences
Differences between rating sources were found both in factor analysis results and in
personality correlates. Factor analysis parameter estimates were generally very
similar. One exception was managers’ self-ratings. Self-loadings and self-factor
correlations were lower than those for other sources. This result is consistent with
meta-analyses showing self-ratings differed from those of other sources (Conway
& Huffcutt, 1997; Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988) and adds to the literature showing
that workers see their own performance quite differently than it is seen by others.
Another exception to the consistent results across sources involved subordinates,
who showed higher factor correlations than other sources. This finding suggests
that subordinates did not distinguish between dimensions as well as supervisors
and peers.
Correlations with personality measures were generally strongest for supervisors and weakest for subordinates. The low subordinate correlations were especially evident for Leadership and Development. This is interesting because this
dimension is very subordinate-focused and should be more important to subordinates than to other sources.
Subordinate ratings are difficult to interpret based on these results. No personality scales correlated most highly with subordinates. It is possible that subordinate
ratings depend more on situational factors than do supervisor or peer ratings. A
number of leadership theories have proposed that the most appropriate type of
leader behavior depends on the type of situation (e.g., Fielder & Garcia, 1987).
Subordinates are probably better aware than supervisors or peers of the situation in
which the manager’s behavior occurs, especially for Leadership and Development-related behavior. Subordinate ratings may better reflect the appropriateness
of the manager’s behavior, given the situation. For example, peers and supervisors
may rate based on the general tendency to provide challenging assignments to employees (a “getting ahead” behavior). Subordinates may be more sensitive to the
appropriateness of the manager’s behavior, and rate not just based on the manager’s general tendency to try to get ahead, but based on how appropriate it is in the
situation at hand. Future research should explore the extent to which differences in
sources’ ratings reflect different, valid perspectives on performance as opposed to
source-specific error variance.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This article was presented at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological
Association.
Thanks to the Center for Creative Leadership for providing the data for this project, and to Joyce Hogan, Margaret A. McManus, and two anonymous reviewers
for their comments on an earlier version of this article.
MANAGERIAL PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENT
45
REFERENCES
Borman, W. C., & Brush, D. H. (1993). More progress toward a taxonomy of managerial performance
requirements. Human Performance, 6, 1–21.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods &
Research, 21, 230–258.
Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. In N.
Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 35–70). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Center for Creative Leadership. (1995). Benchmarks developmental learning guide. Greensboro, NC:
Author.
Conway, J. M., & Huffcutt, A. I. (1997). Psychometric properties of multi-source performance ratings:
A meta-analysis of subordinate, supervisor, peer, and self-ratings. Human Performance, 10,
331–360.
Fiedler, F. E., & Garcia, J. E. (1987). New approaches to effective leadership: Cognitive resources and
organizational performance. New York: Wiley.
Ford, J. K., MacCallum, R. C., & Tait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39, 291–314.
Gough, H. G. (1987). CPI administrator’s guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self–supervisor, self–peer, and
peer–supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41, 43–62.
Hogan, J. (1998). Introduction: Personality and job performance. Human Performance, 11, 125–127.
Hogan, J., Rybicki, S. L., Motowidlo, S. J., & Borman, W. C. (1998). Relations between contextual performance, personality, and organizational advancement. Human Performance, 11, 189–207.
Hogan, R. T. (1991). Personality and personality measurement. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough
(Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 873–919). Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hogan, R., & Shelton, D. (1998). A socioanalytic perspective on job performance. Human Performance, 11, 129–144.
Hough, L. M. (1992). The “Big Five” personality variables–construct confusion: Description versus
prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139–155.
Hough, L. M. (1998, April). Job performance models & personality taxonomies. In J. C. Hogan (Chair),
Meaning and models of the personality–job performance relation. Symposium conducted at the
13th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.
Howard, A., & Bray, D. W. (1988). Managerial lives in transition: Advancing age and changing times.
New York: Guilford.
Hurley, A. E., Scandura, T. A., Schriesheim, C. A., Brannick, M. T., Seers, A., Vandenberg, R. J., &
Williams, L. J. (1997). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Guidelines, issues, and alternatives. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 667–683.
Johnson, J. W., Schneider, R. J., & Oswald, F. L. (1997). Toward a taxonomy of managerial performance profiles. Human Performance, 10, 227–250.
Kamp, J. D., & Hough. L. M. (1988). Utility of temperament for predicting job performance. In L. M.
Hough (Ed.), Utility of temperament, biodata, and interest assessment for predicting job performance (ARI Research Note 88–02; pp. 1–90). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the
Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Kim, J.-O., & Mueller, C. W. (1978). Factor analysis: Statistical methods and practical issues. Beverly
Hills: Sage.
Lindsey, E. H., Homes, V., & McCall, M. W., Jr. (1987). Key events in executives’ lives (Tech. Rep. No.
32). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
46
CONWAY
MacCallum, R. (1998). Commentary on quantitative methods in I–O research. The Industrial–Organizational Psychologist, 35, 19–30.
Maurer, T. J., Raju, N. S., & Collins, W. C. (1998). Peer and subordinate performance appraisal measurement equivalence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 693–702.
McCall, M. W., Jr., Lombardo, M. M., & Morrison, A. M. (1988). The lessons of experience: How successful executives develop on the job. Lexington, MA: Lexington.
McCauley, C. D., Lombardo, M. M., & Usher, C. J. (1989). Diagnosing management development
needs: An instrument based on how managers develop. Journal of Management, 15, 389–403.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 57, 17–40.
McDonald, R. P. (1985). Factor analysis and related methods. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the
Myers–Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
SAS Institute, Inc. (1989). SAS/STAT user’s guide, Version 6 (4th ed., Vol. 1). Cary, NC: Author.
Tornow, W. W., & Pinto, P. R. (1976). The development of a managerial job taxonomy: A system for describing, classifying, and evaluating executive positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61,
410–418.
Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D. S., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Comparative analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 557–574.
Widaman, K. F. (1985). Hierarchically nested covariance structure models for multitrait–multimethod
data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 1–26.