Workshop on Research Advances in Organizational Behavior and Human Resources Management
-
Upload
rhonda-graham -
Category
Documents
-
view
17 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Workshop on Research Advances in Organizational Behavior and Human Resources Management
Is Positive Self-Concept a Categorical Imperative?:
Implications of Core Self-Evaluationsfor Employers and Employees
Timothy A. JudgeUniversity of Florida, USA
Workshop on Research Advances in Organizational Behavior and Human Resources Management
University of Toulouse, France
18 May 2009
22
Positivity in Society
• Positivity is valued in Western society– Positive psychology movement
• Centers (e.g., UM), journals (Journal of Positive Psychology; Journal of Happiness Studies), conferences, awards, books, etc.
– Happiness is to some a natural right (or goal)• Pursuit of happiness a right in Declaration of
Independence – Is positivity particularly American?
33
Positivity in Society
• Why is positivity so desirable?– Is it true?– If so, where is origin?
• Evolution?• Culture?
• Regardless of reasons…– Positivity, for most, is socially desirable– So, self-positivity is also desirable
44
Self-Positivity
• Self-positivity = categorical imperative?– Act only according to that maxim by which you
can at the same time will that it should become a universal law (Kant)
• From Elizabeth Anscombe (1958):– virtue ethic refocuses moral philosophy from
“what is right?” to “how should I live?”• Universal virtue ethic: everyone should live this way
• Should all have a positive self-concept?
55
Should All Be Self-Positive?
• Quality of life– Subjective and physical (health) well-being– Employment– Societal (prosocial [+], deviant [-])
• Ecological generalization– Does what applies to the individual necessarily
apply to society?
• Philosophy aside, focus here on central self-positive trait: core self-evaluations
66
Core Self-Evaluations
• Core self-evaluations (CSE) are individuals’ fundamental evaluations of their worthiness and competence (to perform, cope, persevere, and succeed)
• Indicated by at least four traits: self-esteem, locus of control, generalized self-efficacy, and emotional stability
• CSE is broad factor that causes these measures to be correlated
77
Measure of CSE
• One can measure CSE as latent factor indicated by individual core traits, or
• Use direct measure: Core Self-Evaluations Scale (CSES)
I am confident I get the success I deserve in life. Sometimes I feel depressed. (r)
When I try, I generally succeed. Sometimes when I fail I feel worthless. (r)
Sometimes, I do not feel in control of my work. (r) I complete tasks successfully.
I am filled with doubts about my competence. (r) Overall, I am satisfied with myself.
I do not feel in control of my success in my career. (r) I determine what will happen in my life.
I am capable of coping with most of my problems. There are times when things look pretty bleak and hopeless to me. (r)
Source: Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (PPsych, 2003)
88
Origins and Outcomes
• What causes CSE?– Genetics– General mental ability– Attractiveness
• Like all traits, there are probably state and trait qualities to CSE– Personality change: Both long-term (Roberts)
and short-term variation (Fleeson)
99
Genetic Source of CSE
• No previous studies of CSE heritability
• We (Judge & Ilies, under review) studied heritability of CSE using Swedish twins
• Heritability of CSE = .42 (42% genetic)– Heritability unaffected by controlling for
whether twins were raised apart or together– Heritability about the same as that for Big Five
traits
1010
Genetic Source of CSEMonozygotic
(identical) twinsDizygotic
(fraternal) twins
r12 N(twins) r12 N(twins)
CSE .45 113 .19 181
Job satisfaction .33 65 .18 109
Work stress .33 61 .07 103
Note: r12=correlation between Twin 1 and Twin 2.
Source: Judge & Ilies (under review)
**
**
**
*
1111
Control for Shared EnvironmentMonozygotic
(identical) twinsDizygotic
(fraternal) twins
r12 N(twins) r12 N(twins)
CSE .44 113 .18 181
Job satisfaction .33 65 .18 109
Work stress .33 61 .07 103
Note: r12=correlation between Twin 1 and Twin 2.
Source: Judge & Ilies (under review)
**
**
**
*
1212
Role of Brains and Beauty
• CSE has been solely conceptualized as a trait, which presumably is exogenous– But best indicator of CSE is self-esteem,
which is often studied as dependent variable
• Investigated degree to which general mental ability, physical attractiveness, education, and CSE predict success– GMA assessed by battery of tests,
attractiveness from ratings of photosSource: Judge, Hurst, & Simon (in press, JAP)
1313
Role of Brains and Beauty
Source: Judge, Hurst, & Simon (in press, JAP)
Core Self-Evaluations
GeneralMentalAbility
PhysicalAttractiveness
EducationalAttainment
Income(Time 2)
Financial Strains(Time 3)
Demographics(Age, Race, Sex)
.51**
.23**
.21**
.19**
.41**
.24**
.13*
.18**
.23**
-.31**
-.26**
1414
Origins and Outcomes
• What does CSE cause?– Job satisfaction– Job performance– Stressors (-), stress (-), strain (-), and coping
(+)– Career success trajectories– Receipt of OCBs (+) and CWBs (-) from
others
1515
Job Satisfaction
• Individuals with positive CSE have higher levels of job satisfaction
• Why?– Subjective perceptions of intrinsic job
characteristics (Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, JAP, 1998)
– Objective qualities of jobs attained (Judge, Bono,
& Locke, JAP, 2000): High CSE people occupy more complex jobs
1616
Job Performance
• Core self-evaluations predicts performance– Individual core traits (Judge & Bono, JAP, 2001)
– Overall CSES (Judge et al., PPsych, 2003)
• Why?– Individuals with positive CSE set higher goals
and are more committed to them (Erez & Judge, JAP, 2001)
1717
JobPerformance• This shows that
very few high-CSES individuals are below-average performers, and very few low-CSES individuals are above-average performers
Source: Judge (Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2009)
1818
Stressors
Source: Judge, Woolf, Schilpzand, and Hurst (in preparation)
-.59
-.43
-.38 -.39
-.12
-.17 -.16
-.28
-.75
-.60
-.45
-.30
-.15
.00
SE GSE LOC N
Ro
le A
mb
igu
ity
There is insufficientresearch linkingCSES to stressors,stress, and strain.
In this study wemeta-analyzed linkbetween each coretrait and stressors(here, role ambig-uity).
How do resultsinform?
1919
Stress
Source: Judge, Woolf, Schilpzand, and Hurst (in preparation)
-.63
-.49
-.29
-.44
-.48
-.23
-.17
-.10
-.75
-.60
-.45
-.30
-.15
.00
SE GSE LOC N
Glo
bal
Str
ess
There is insufficientresearch linkingCSES to stressors,stress, and strain.
In this study wemeta-analyzed linkbetween each coretrait and globalstress measures.
How do resultsinform?
Black square – mean estimate
Grey bars – upper and lower valuesof 95% confidence interval
2020
Strain
Source: Judge, Woolf, Schilpzand, and Hurst (in preparation)
There is insufficientresearch linkingCSES to stressors,stress, and strain.
In this study wemeta-analyzed linkbetween each coretrait and strain(here, burnout)
How do resultsinform?
-.77
-.62
-.40
-.88
-.24 -.26
-.14
-.26
-1.00
-.85
-.70
-.55
-.40
-.25
-.10
SE GSE LOC N
Bu
rno
ut
Black square – mean estimate
Grey bars – upper and lower valuesof 95% confidence interval
2121
Coping
Source: Kammeyer-Mueller, Judge, & Scott (JAP, 2009)
2222
Career Success Trajectories
95010
115788
32678
40469
30,000
60,000
90,000
120,000
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
19
96
20
00
20
04
Low CSE
High CSE
Source: Judge and Hurst (JAP, 2008)
Careers (in form of pay[shown here], occup-ational prestige, jobsatisfaction, and careerSatisfaction) ascendmore rapidly with thepassage of time for thosewith high CSE (+1 SD)than those with low CSE(-1 SD).
Over 25 years, pay gapincreases from $7,791 to$20,778.
2323
Receipt of OCBs and CWBs
Core Self-Evaluationsof Employee†
EmployeePopularity‡
OrganizationalCitizenship
Behaviors Receivedby Employee
† As rated by employee’s significant other. ‡ As rated by employee’s co-workers.
Source: Scott & Judge (JAP, 2008)
CounterproductiveBehaviors Received
by Employee
Communication NetworkCentrality of Employee
.27*
.38*
.28*
-.18
.32*
-.06
-.30*
2424
Origins and Outcomes
• Does Context Moderate Outcomes of CSE?– Favorability of early life circumstances– Favorability of work environment– Culture– Job characteristics– Others?
2525
Favorability of Early Life
$90,758
$51,544
$43,861$37,836
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
$90,000
$100,000
8 years 10 years 12 years 14 years
High CSE
Low CSE
Predicted Income 1994-2002
Parents’ Education in 1979
High CSEpeople profitmore fromparents beinghighly educated
Source: Judge & Hurst (JAP, 2007)
2626
Favorability of Early Life
$103,297
$54,636
$44,135$38,703
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
15 30 45 60 75
High CSE
Low CSE
Predicted Income 1994-2002
Parents’ Occupational Prestige 1979
Roofer Carpenter Musician Therapist Economist Waiter Plumber Nurse(RN) Manager Chemist
High CSEpeople profitmore fromparents’ occ.prestige
Source: Judge & Hurst (JAP, 2007)
2727
Favorability of Environment
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.25
Low High
Core Self-Evaluations
Ove
rall
Per
form
ance
High LeaderEffectiveness
Low LeaderEffectiveness
CSE more positivelyrelated to performancewhen individuals workunder effective leaders
Source: Kacmar, Collins, Harris, and Judge (under review)
2828
Favorability of Environment
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.25
Low High
Core Self-Evaluations
Ov
era
ll P
erf
orm
an
ce
High IntrinsicSatisfactionLow IntrinsicSatisfaction
CSE was more positivelyrelated to performancewhen individuals hadhigh levels of intrinsicjob satisfaction
Source: Kacmar, Collins, Harris, and Judge (under review)
2929
Culture
3.50
3.70
3.90
4.10
4.30
4.50
4.70
Low (-1SD) Average High (+1SD)
Collectivism
Job
Sat
isfa
ctio
n
Low CSEHigh CSE
Collectivism was associated with higher job satisfaction moresofor high CSE people
Sample of 269employees oflarge electronicscompany in PRC
Source: Judge & Sun (in preparation)
3030
Culture
5.25
5.50
5.75
6.00
Low (-1SD) Average High (+1SD)
Collectivism
Cit
izen
ship
Beh
avio
r
Low CSEHigh CSE
Collectivism was associated with higher levels of OCBs only forhigh CSE people
Sample of 269employees oflarge electronicscompany in PRC
Source: Judge & Sun (in preparation)
3131
Emerging Areas
• State and trait– Focus on intra-individual variation in CSE
(why and how our state CSE fluctuates)
• Costs and limits– Self-verification– Affective forecasting (are high CSE individuals
more biased?)– Trait paradoxes
3232
State and Trait
400
650
900
1150
1400
Low HighState Core Self-Evaluations
(Time T-1)
Ear
nin
gs/
Mo
nth
(£)
(Tim
e T
)
Low Trait CSE
High Trait CSE
Source: Judge & Klinger (in preparation)
People with high traitCSE earned more
State CSE positivelypredicted incomethe following year…
But only for thosewith low trait CSE
3333
State and Trait
0.00
0.03
0.06
0.09
0.12
Low HighState Core Self-Evaluations
(Time T-1)
Un
emp
loym
ent
Sta
tus
(Tim
e T
)
Low Trait CSE
High Trait CSE
People who had lowertrait CSE had higherunemployment rates
State CSE led to lowerunemployment rates inthe following year
State CSE was morestrongly linked to lowerunemployment rates forlow trait CSE people
Source: Judge & Klinger (in preparation)
3434
Costs and Limits
• “All traits have bright and dark sides, and carry with them evolutionary paradoxes that are often not imagined until revealed”– Judge and Piccolo (Leadership Quarterly, under revision)
• “A fruitful way of looking at variation is in terms of trade-offs of different fitness benefits and costs” – Nettle (American Psychologist, 2006)
• CSE is certain to have dark side
3535
Costs and Limits
What Do These Species Have in Common?
3636
Costs and Limits
Notes: Estimates are βs. N=164. † p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01.
Source: Erez and Judge (in preparation)
Overall Job Performance
Contextual Performance
Task Performance
Neuroticism .16 .31** .20*
Extraversion .05 -.02 .05Openness -.07 -.07 -.11Agreeableness -.05 .13 -.07Conscientiousness .16† .06 .23**
Core self-evaluations
.32** .39** .28**
3737
Costs and Limits
• CSE doesn’t appear to be same as narcissism (r=+.21) and effects appear to be different
Turnover
in ten tion
Pe rson-
environm en t
fit
Pe rson-
job
fit
B urnout
A ffe ctive
com m itm e nt
O rgan izat ional
iden tific ation
Perceived
o rgan iza tional
support P ro testan t w ork eth ic - .18* * .23 * * .09† .00 .28* * .19 ** .14 * N arc issism .12* -.07 -.05 .15* * - .04 -.08 -.08 C ore self -evaluat ions - .37* * .37 * * .41* * - .49* * .31* * .34 ** .32 * * R .41* * .43 * * .41* * .48* * .42* * .39 ** .34 * * R 2 .17* * .19 * * .17* * .23* * .17* * .15 ** .12 * *
Source: Judge, Sun, and Rode (in preparation)
3838
Costs and Limits
75
25
45
55
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
FavorableEvaluation
UnfavorableEvaluation
Per
cen
tag
e C
ho
osi
ng
Inte
ract
ion
P
artn
er
Positive Self-Concept
Negative Self-Concept
Source: Judge, Cable, and Klinger (in progress)
High CSE people aremuch more likely tochose an interactionpartner who will givethem positive feedback
3939
Conclusion
• So, is core self-evaluations a categorical imperative or universal virtue ethic?
• The answer is no; however…– There are many benefits to positive CSE– As for all traits, validities are moderate
• “There is a complexity to human affairs before which science and analysis simply stands mute”
– David Brooks, New York Times (5.12.09)
Thank you!
All published and in press papers, and copies of these slides, available at:
http://www.ufstudies.net/tim/VITA/index.htm
Questions?