Jeffery A. LePine

Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: a meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance.

The trust literature distinguishes trustworthiness (the ability, benevolence, and integrity of a trustee) and trust propensity (a dispositional willingness to rely on others) from trust (the intention to accept vulnerability to a trustee based on positive expectations of his or her actions). Although this distinction has clarified some confusion in the literature, it remains unclear (a) which trust antecedents have the strongest relationships with trust and (b) whether trust fully mediates the effects of trustworthiness and trust propensity on behavioral outcomes. Our meta-analysis of 132 independent samples summarized the relationships between the trust variables and both risk taking and job performance (task performance, citizenship behavior, counterproductive behavior). Meta-analytic structural equation modeling supported a partial mediation model wherein trustworthiness and trust propensity explained incremental variance in the behavioral outcomes when trust was controlled. Further analyses revealed that the trustworthiness dimensions also predicted affective commitment, which had unique relationships with the outcomes when controlling for trust. These results generalized across different types of trust measures (i.e., positive expectations measures, willingness-to-be-vulnerable measures, and direct measures) and different trust referents (i.e., leaders, coworkers).

Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: a theoretical extension and meta-analytic test.

We refine and extend the job demands-resources model with theory regarding appraisal of stressors to account for inconsistencies in relationships between demands and engagement, and we test the revised theory using meta-analytic structural modeling. Results indicate support for the refined and updated theory. First, demands and burnout were positively associated, whereas resources and burnout were negatively associated. Second, whereas relationships among resources and engagement were consistently positive, relationships among demands and engagement were highly dependent on the nature of the demand. Demands that employees tend to appraise as hindrances were negatively associated with engagement, and demands that employees tend to appraise as challenges were positively associated with engagement. Implications for future research are discussed.

Differential challenge stressor-hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: A meta-analysis.

In this article, a 2-dimensional work stressor framework is used to explain inconsistencies in past research with respect to stressor relationships with retention-related criteria. Results of meta-analyses of 183 independent samples indicated that whereas hindrance stressors had dysfunctional relationships with these criteria (negative relationships with job satisfaction and organizational commitment and positive relationships with turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior), relationships with challenge stressors were generally the opposite (positive relationships with job satisfaction and organizational commitment and negative relationships with turnover intentions and turnover). Results also suggested that the differential relationships between challenge stressors and hindrance stressors and the more distal criteria (withdrawal behavior and turnover) were due, in part, to the mediating effects of job attitudes.

Loving Yourself Abundantly: Relationship of the Narcissistic Personality to Self- and Other Perceptions of Workplace Deviance, Leadership, and Task and Contextual Performance

The authors report results from 2 studies assessing the extent to which narcissism is related to self- and other ratings of leadership, workplace deviance, and task and contextual performance. Study 1 results revealed that narcissism was related to enhanced self-ratings of leadership, even when controlling for the Big Five traits. Study 2 results also revealed that narcissism was related to enhanced leadership self-perceptions; indeed, whereas narcissism was significantly positively correlated with self-ratings of leadership, it was significantly negatively related to other ratings of leadership. Study 2 also revealed that narcissism was related to more favorable self-ratings of workplace deviance and contextual performance compared to other (supervisor) ratings. Finally, as hypothesized, narcissism was more strongly negatively related to contextual performance than to task performance.

Explaining the justice-performance relationship: trust as exchange deepener or trust as uncertainty reducer?

Past research has revealed significant relationships between organizational justice dimensions and job performance, and trust is thought to be one mediator of those relationships. However, trust has been positioned in justice theorizing in 2 different ways, either as an indicator of the depth of an exchange relationship or as a variable that reflects levels of work-related uncertainty. Moreover, trust scholars distinguish between multiple forms of trust, including affect- and cognition-based trust, and it remains unclear which form is most relevant to justice effects. To explore these issues, we built and tested a more comprehensive model of trust mediation in which procedural, interpersonal, and distributive justice predicted affect- and cognition-based trust, with those trust forms predicting both exchange- and uncertainty-based mechanisms. The results of a field study in a hospital system revealed that the trust variables did indeed mediate the relationships between the organizational justice dimensions and job performance, with affect-based trust driving exchange-based mediation and cognition-based trust driving uncertainty-based mediation.

Well, I'm Tired of Tryin'! Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Citizenship Fatigue

This study seeks to identify workplace conditions that influence the degree to which employees feel worn out, tired, or on edge attributed to engaging in organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and also how this phenomenon, which we refer to as citizenship fatigue, is associated with future occurrences of OCB. Using data collected from 273 employees and their peers at multiple points in time, we found that the relationship between OCB and citizenship fatigue depends on levels of perceived organizational support, quality of team-member exchange relationships, and pressure to engage in OCB. Specifically, the relationship between OCB and citizenship fatigue is significantly stronger and positive when perceived organizational support is low, and it is significantly stronger and negative when the quality of team-member exchange is high and pressure to engage in OCB is low. Our results also indicate that citizenship fatigue is negatively related to subsequent acts of OCB. Finally, supplemental analyses reveal that the relationship between OCB and citizenship fatigue may vary as a function of the specific facet of OCB. We conclude with a discussion of the key theoretical and practical implications of our findings.

The Adequacy of Repeated-Measures Regression for Multilevel Research Comparisons With Repeated-Measures ANOVA, Multivariate Repeated-Measures ANOVA, and Multilevel Modeling Across Various Multilevel Research Designs

The authors assess the suitability of repeated-measures regression (RMR) to analyze multilevel data in four popular multilevel research designs by comparing results of RMR analyses to results of analyses using techniques known to produce correct results in these designs. The findings indicate that RMR may be suitable for only a small number of situations and that repeated-measures ANOVA, multivariate repeated-measures ANOVA, and multilevel modeling may be better suited to analyze multilevel data under most circumstances. The authors conclude by offering recommendations regarding the appropriateness of the different techniques given the different research designs.

The bright and dark sides of personality: Implications for personnel selection in individual and team contexts

That personality has shown itself relevant to individual attitudes and behavior, and to team and organizational functioning, seems an incontrovertible statement. Barrick and Mount (2005: 361) flatly state: ‘Personality traits do matter at work’ and indeed the data appear to support their conclusion (Hogan, 2005). Barrick et al. (2001) analyzed extant meta-analyses on relationship between the ‘big five’ personality traits and job performance, finding a multiple correlation of R 0.47 when the five traits were used to predict overall job performance. Other large-scale reviews have linked personality to job satisfaction (Judge et al., 2002a), leadership (Judge et al., 2002b), workplace deviance (Salgado, 2002), well-being (DeNeve and Cooper, 1998), and organizational commitment (Erdheim et al., 2006). However, skeptics remain. One line of criticism argues that whilst personality has nonzero associations with important criteria, the effect sizes are small. In arguing that little has changed since Guion and Gottier’s (1965) influential (and pessimistic) review, Schmitt (2004: 348) observed, ‘The observed validity of personality measures, then and now, is quite low even though they can account for incrementally useful levels of variance in work-related criteria beyond that afforded by cognitive ability measures because personality and cognitive ability measures are usually minimally correlated’. Hogan (2005) takes issue with overall assessment, while also arguing that the validity of personality measures is often underestimated by failing to account for poor measures, the source of personality ratings (self versus observer), and the situationally specific nature of performance. He concludes, ‘The bottom line is, personality measures work pretty well, especially when compared with all the other measures’ (p. 340). Our own view is that whereas it is true that the validities for personality variables cannot be labeled as strong using the Cohen (1977) effect size conventions, the same is true of virtually any meaningful predictor of broad, complex criteria such as job performance. For example, there is perhaps no theory in organizational behavior more respected for its validity than goal-setting theory. Locke and Latham (2002: 714) concluded, ‘Goal-setting theory is among the most valid and practical theories of employee motivation in organizational psychology’ and Miner (2003) found that organizational behavior scholars ranked goal-setting theory as the most important of all (73 were rated) management theories. Yet meta-analyses have revealed that the overall validity of goal difficulty in predicting job performance is dc 0.577 (Wood et al., 1987), which translates into a correlation of Rc 0.277. This differs little from the overall validity of conscientiousness (Rc 0.23) or core self-evaluations (Rc 0.23) in predicting job performance. When one considers the constellation of traits, the validity is much higher (Rc 0.47, as noted above).

Relationships Among Work and Non-Work Challenge and Hindrance Stressors and Non-Work and Work Criteria: A Model of Cross-Domain Stressor Effects

In this chapter we extend previous theory on the effects of stressors at the intersection of the work–family interface by considering the challenge stressor–hindrance stressor framework. Our central proposition is that stressors in one domain (work or non-work) are associated with criteria in the same domain and across domains through four core mediating variables. Through this theoretical lens we develop a set of propositions, which as a set, suggest that managing the work–family interface involves balancing the offsetting indirect effects of challenge and hindrance stressors.

Divided We Fall: How Ratios Undermine Research in Strategic Management

Despite scholars’ admonitions regarding the use of ratios in statistical analyses, the practice is common in management research. This is particularly true in the area of strategic management, where important variables of interest are operationalized as ratios. In this study, we employ simulations to demonstrate the implications of using ratios in statistical analyses. Our simulations illustrate that ratio variables produce inaccurate parameter estimates and can result in lower levels of statistical power (i.e., the ability to uncover hypothesized relationships). We also find that when an independent or a dependent variable is a ratio, the relationship between the independent and dependent variable fluctuates as the dispersion of the denominator changes. These fluctuations occur even when the correlations between the unscaled variables remain exactly the same. We also find that including ratios in models as control variables influences estimates of relationships between focal independent and dependent variables. This is true even when neither the independent or dependent variable is a ratio. We provide several recommendations for researchers who may be interested in avoiding the pitfalls of ratio variables.