Numerous studies have tested the predictive validity of the FFM domains as antecedents to CWB. The empirical evidence is best summarised by several meta-analysis studies that analysed the relationship between the domains of the FFM and CWB. Hough (1992; cited in Salgado, 2002) conducted a meta-analysis study to analyse the validity of a range of
personality dimensions (although not specifically the FFM domains) to predict a group of CWBs that she labelled ‘irresponsible behaviour’. Her analysis found that ‘achievement’ and ‘dependability’, both of which would be considered as narrower facets of the
conscientiousness domain of the FFM, had a significantly negative relationship with her CWB criterion variable. Hough also established a positive relationship between emotionality and CWB. This study demonstrated the significance of the emotionality domain and aspects of the conscientiousness domain of the FFM for CWB. It did not, however, analyse the predictive validity of the other domains of the FFM.
Salgado (2002) addressed this issue in his meta-analysis that assessed the predictive validity of each of the domains of the FFM domains for a range of negative work behaviours
including absenteeism, accidents, turnover and a category he termed ‘deviant behaviours’ which included CWB such as theft and disciplinary problems. Salgado (2002) found that none of the FFM domains were an effective predictor for absenteeism or accidents. He found corrected operational validity coefficients to indicate that emotional stability (.35),
conscientiousness (.31) and agreeableness (.22) were effective predictors of (lack of) turn- over and in relation to the CWB construct he found that conscientiousness (.26) and
agreeableness (.20) were effective predictors of his (lack of) ‘deviant behaviours’ criterion. The meta-analysis indicated that the FFM domains of conscientiousness and agreeableness require consideration in the prediction of CWB. As noted in section 2.3, employers are likely to be most advantaged by identification of dispositional predictors for the global and
dimensional levels of the CWB construct. Salgado (2002) did not, however, explore the predictive validity of the FFM domains on CWB at the interpersonal or organisational level.
Berry, Ones and Sackett (2007) addressed this issue by examining the predictive validity of the FFM for CWB at the level of the target of the behaviour (CWBI or CWBO). Whilst the purpose of Berry et al’s., (2007) meta-analysis was to determine the validity of separating CWB into interpersonal and organisational deviance factors, the results provide informative data on the dispositional predictors for the global and dimensional levels of this construct. Berry et al’s., (2007) analysis found a significant relationship between the two CWB
constructs (r= .62) but concluded that the differing relationships between CWBO and CWBI and other variables supported the separability of the two constructs. Their analysis found little evidence of a relationship between the FFM domains of openness and extraversion with
either CWBO or CWBI. They found that the emotional stability domain had similar relationships with both CWBO and CWBI (r = -.23 and r = -.24) and agreeableness had a stronger relationship with CWBI (r = -.46) than CWBO (r = -.32) whilst conscientiousness had a stronger relationship with CWBO (r = -.42) than CWBI (r = -.23).
To summarise the literature, Berry et al’s. (2007) meta-analysis lends support to constructing a personnel selection process that assesses the impact of dispositional variables at the
dimensional level of the CWB construct: CWBI and CWBO. Salgado’s (2002) analysis assessed the FFM domains as predictors of CWB but he did not assess these predictors against the separate CWBO and CWBI domains. Salgado (2002) found weaker relationships between some of the FFM domains and CWB than was found by Berry et al. (2007). The weaker relationships in the Salgado’s (2002) analysis may be the result of combining the CWBO and CWBI domains into a broader CWB construct which could in turn dilute the effect of specific dispositional predictors. Therefore, based on the reviewed literature a personnel selection model aimed at determining a parsimonious tool to assess the dispositional predictors of CWB is likely to have a statistical and practical advantage by considering the CWB construct and the personality predictors of this at the global and dimensional level.
This thesis attempts to replicate the findings of Berry et al (2007). In particular, it is expected that there will be a significant relationship between the FFM domains of emotionality,
conscientiousness and agreeableness, and CWB at the global construct level. It is also expected that there will be stronger relationships between the FFM domain of agreeableness and CWBI than CWBO and the relationship between the FFM domains of conscientiousness will be stronger for the CWBO domain than it is for the CWBI domain.
Whilst these meta-analytic studies have not demonstrated a link between extraversion and openness and CWB, there are several individual studies that have demonstrated the predictive validity of these FFM domains with CWB. A recent study compared the differential effect of each of the FFM on global CWB, OCBI, OCBO and a range of CWB behaviours (Bolton, Becker & Barber, 2010). The results of this study indicated significant relationships between each of the FFM domains, besides openness, and the global CWB measure. With reference to extraversion, the results indicated a significant negative relationship between extraversion and the global construct of CWB (r = -.14, p <.05) as well as CWBO dimension (r = .18, p < .01). The results of this study did not demonstrate a relationship between extraversion and CWBI.
Another recent study examined the relationships between personality variables, organisational justice, OCB and CWB for a range of occupational groups in Thailand (Chang & Smithikrai, 2010). The study did not assess the impact of dispositional variables on the target of the CWB (organisation or individual), but the results demonstrated that there were significant
relationships between all FFM domains and the CWB construct. In relation to extraversion and openness, the study found a significant relationship between extraversion and global CWB (r = -.36, p < .01) and openness and global CWB (r = -.29, p <.01).
In summary, the meta-analytic studies that have explored the FFM dimensions as predictors of CWB have found a strong empirical link for the FFM dimensions of conscientiousness, emotionality and agreeableness with CWB (Salgado, 2002; Berry et al, 2007) and Berry et. al (2007) further clarified the predictive validity for conscientiousness, agreeableness and emotionality for both the global CWB and the interpersonal and organisational domains. Whilst extraversion and openness have not received support as predictors of CWB in these
meta-analytic studies there is a level of empirical support for the predictive validity of these domains with the CWB construct. Table 2.3 provides a summary of the empirical studies that support the predictive validity of the domains of the FFM with the CWB construct and its interpersonal and organisational dimensions.
Table 2.3
Summary of Empirical Studies Supporting Domains as Predictors of CWB and its Dimensions Dispositional
Predictor
Global CWB CWBI CWBO
Emotionality Hough (1992)a Berry et al. (2007) a Berry et al. (2007) a Extraversion Bolton et al. (2010)
Chang & Smithikrai (2010)
Bolton et al. (2010)
Openness Chang & Smithikrai (2010)
Agreeableness Salgado (2002) a Berry et al. (2007) a Berry et al. (2007) a
Conscientiousness Hough (1992) a
Salgado (2002) a Berry et al. (2007)
a Berry et al. (2007) a
Lee et al. (2005a)
a meta-analysis studies