Advertisement

Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 149–159 | Cite as

Homogeneity of Personality in Occupations and Organizations: A Comparison of Alternative Statistical Tests

  • Jill C. Bradley-GeistEmail author
  • Ronald S. Landis
Article

Abstract

Purpose

The attraction–selection–attrition (ASA) model has served as the foundation for numerous investigations. However, the generally supportive evidence for ASA’s homogeneity hypothesis has often been based on statistical tests (e.g., MANOVA) that rely on between-group differences to evaluate within-group agreement. The primary purpose of this article was to discuss advantages of direct statistical tests of homogeneity—average deviation (AD) and r wg—when testing ASA’s homogeneity hypothesis, and advantages of other statistical tests for testing other aspects of ASA theory. A secondary goal was to evaluate the extent to which occupational homogeneity is distinct from organizational homogeneity.

Design/Methodology/Approach

Data were obtained from the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) and included scores on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI) personality measure for 1,103 managers from 25 organizations and 17 occupations.

Findings

Results were generally supportive of the homogeneity hypothesis. AD values showed that most groups were homogeneous on most assessed personality dimensions. A comparison analysis using traditional statistical tests (i.e., MANOVA) indirectly suggested within-group homogeneity by revealing a significant between-groups effect. In addition, results suggested possible boundary conditions to ASA; notably, meaningful heterogeneity was observed for the S–N (sensing-intuition) MBTI® dimension.

Implications

The current study provides direct support for ASA’s homogeneity hypothesis for both organizations and occupations and offers guidance for future research on ASA theory and its possible boundary conditions.

Originality/Value

This is one of the first studies to test the predictions of ASA in both organizations and occupations using a direct index of agreement.

Keywords

Homogeneity ASA Attraction–selection–attrition AD Personality Organizational demography 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) for providing access to the MBTI® instrument data for this study. The authors also want to express their gratitude to Michael Burke for his comments on a previous version of this article.

References

  1. Assouline, M., & Meir, E. (1987). Meta-analysis of the relationship between congruence and well-being measures. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 28, 319–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beer, A., & Watson, D. (2008). Personality judgment at zero acquaintance: Agreement, assumed similarity, and implicit simplicity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(3), 250–260.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. Klein & S. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349–381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, D. (1987). The status of Holland’s theory of vocational choice. Career Development Quarterly, 36, 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burke, M. J., & Dunlap, W. P. (2002). Estimating interrater agreement with the average deviation index: A user’s guide. Organizational Research Methods, 5, 159–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burke, M. J., Finkelstein, L. M., & Dusig, M. S. (1999). On average deviation indices for estimating interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Interviewers’ perceptions of person-organization fit and organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 546–561.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dickson, M. W., Resick, C. J., & Goldstein, H. W. (2008). Seeking explanations in people, not in the results of their behavior: Twenty-plus years of the attraction-selection-attrition model. In D. Smith & D. Smith (Eds.), The people make the place: Dynamic linkages between individuals and organizations (pp. 5–36). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Funder, D. C., Kolar, D. C., & Blackman, M. C. (1995). Agreement among judges of personality: Interpersonal relations, similarity, and acquaintanceship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 656–672.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Furnham, A. (2001). Vocational preference and P-O fit: Reflections on Holland’s theory of vocational choice. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. George, J. M., & James, L. R. (1993). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups revisited: Comment on aggregation, levels of analysis, and a recent application of within and between analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 798–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Giberson, T. R., Resick, C. J., & Dickson, M. W. (2005). Embedding leader characteristics: An examination of homogeneity of personality and values in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1002–1010.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.Google Scholar
  14. Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.Google Scholar
  15. Jackson, S. E., Brett, J. F., Sessa, V. I., Cooper, D. M., Julin, J. A., & Peyronnin, K. (1991). Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 675–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. James, L. R. (1988). Organizational climate: Another look at a potentially important construct. In S. G. Cole & R. G. Demaree (Eds.), Applications of interactionist psychology: Essays in honor of Saul B. Sells (pp. 253–282). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jordan, M., Herriot, P., & Chalmers, C. (1991). Testing Schneider’s ASA theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 40, 47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Klein, K. J., Conn, A., Smith, D., & Sorra, J. (2001). Is everyone in agreement? An exploration of within-group agreement in employee perceptions of the work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 3–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. Ployhart, R. E., Weekley, J. A., & Baughman, K. (2006). The structure and function of human capital emergence: A multilevel examination of the attraction-selection-attrition model. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 661–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Roberts, B. W., & Mroczek, D. K. (2008). Personality trait stability and change. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 31–35.Google Scholar
  25. Satterwhite, R. C., Fleenor, J. W., Braddy, P. W., Feldman, J., & Hoopes, L. (2009). A case for homogeneity of personality at the occupational level. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17, 154–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schaubroeck, J., Ganster, D. C., & Jones, J. R. (1998). Organization and occupation influences in the attraction–selection–attrition process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 869–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. E. (1985). Employee and customer perceptions of service in banks: Replication and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 423–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update. Personnel Psychology, 48, 747–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schneider, B., Smith, D., & Goldstein, H. (2000). Attraction–selection–attrition: Toward a person–environment psychology of organizations. Person–environment psychology: New directions and perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 61–85). Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. Schneider, B., Smith, D. B., Taylor, S., & Fleenor, J. (1998). Personality and organizations: A test of the homogeneity of personality hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 462–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Spokane, A. R., Meir, E. I., & Catalano, M. (2000). Person-environment congruence and Holland’s theory: A review and reconsideration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57, 137–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tranberg, M., Slane, S., & Ekeberg, S. (1993). The relation between interest congruence and satisfaction: A meta analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 253–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Turban, D. B., & Keon, T. L. (1993). Organizational attractiveness: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 184–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Watson, D., Hubbard, B., & Wiese, D. (2000). Self-other agreement in personality and affectivity: The role of acquaintanceship, trait visibility, and assumed similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 546–558.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Watson, D., Klohnen, E. C., Casillas, A., Nus Simms, E., Haig, J., & Berry, D. S. (2004). Match makers and deal breakers: Analyses of assortative mating in newlywed couples. Journal of Personality, 72, 1029–1068.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yammarino, F. J., & Markham, S. E. (1992). On the application of within and between analysis: Are absence and affect really group-based phenomena? Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(2), 168–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.California State UniversityFresnoUSA
  2. 2.University of MemphisMemphisUSA

Personalised recommendations