Reinout E. de Vries

Explaining Knowledge Sharing The Role of Team Communication Styles, Job Satisfaction, and Performance Beliefs

In this study, the authors investigate the relationships between team communication styles and job-related cognitions on one hand and knowledge-sharing attitudes and behaviors on the other using 424 members of different work-related teams. Both eagerness and willingness to share are positively related to knowledge sharing—both donating and collecting knowledge. These attitudes mediate the relationships of communication styles, job satisfaction, and performance beliefs with knowledge-collecting and donating behaviors. In terms of team communication styles, an agreeable style is positively related to team members’ willingness to share their knowledge, whereas an extravert communication style of a team is positively related to both eagerness and willingness to share. Performance beliefs and job satisfaction are both related to willingness and eagerness to share knowledge. However, in contrast with the authors’ expectations, the relationship between eagerness to share knowledge and knowledge donating is not stronger than the one between eagerness and knowledge collecting.In this study, the authors investigate the relationships between team communication styles and job-related cognitions on one hand and knowledge-sharing attitudes and behaviors on the other using 424 members of different work-related teams. Both eagerness and willingness to share are positively related to knowledge sharing—both donating and collecting knowledge. These attitudes mediate the relationships of communication styles, job satisfaction, and performance beliefs with knowledge-collecting and donating behaviors. In terms of team communication styles, an agreeable style is positively related to team members’ willingness to share their knowledge, whereas an extravert communication style of a team is positively related to both eagerness and willingness to share. Performance beliefs and job satisfaction are both related to willingness and eagerness to share knowledge. However, in contrast with the authors’ expectations, the relationship between eagerness to share knowledge and knowledge donating is not s...

The HEXACO Honesty-Humility, Agreeableness, and Emotionality Factors A Review of Research and Theory

We review research and theory on the HEXACO personality dimensions of Honesty-Humility (H), Agreeableness (A), and Emotionality (E), with particular attention to the following topics: (1) the origins of the HEXACO model in lexical studies of personality structure, and the content of the H, A, and E factors in those studies; (2) the operationalization of the H, A, and E factors in the HEXACO Personality Inventory–Revised; (3) the construct validity of self-reports on scales measuring the H factor; (4) the theoretical distinction between H and A; (5) similarity and assumed similarity between social partners in personality, with a focus on H and A; (6) the extent to which H (and A and E) variance is represented in instruments assessing the “Five-Factor Model” of personality; and (7) the relative validity of scales assessing the HEXACO and Five-Factor Model dimensions in predicting criteria conceptually relevant to H, A, and E.

Higher Order Factors of Personality: Do They Exist?

Scales that measure the Big Five personality factors are often substantially intercorrelated. These correlations are sometimes interpreted as implying the existence of two higher order factors of personality. The authors show that correlations between measures of broad personality factors do not necessarily imply the existence of higher order factors and might instead be due to variables that represent same-signed blends of orthogonal factors. Therefore, the hypotheses of higher order factors and blended variables can only be tested with data on lower level personality variables that define the personality factors. The authors compared the higher order factor model and the blended variable model in three participant samples using the Big Five Aspect Scales, and found better fit for the latter model. In other analyses using the HEXACO Personality Inventory, they identified mutually uncorrelated markers of six personality factors. The authors conclude that correlations between personality factor scales can be explained without postulating any higher order dimensions of personality.

Leadership = Communication? The Relations of Leaders’ Communication Styles with Leadership Styles, Knowledge Sharing and Leadership Outcomes

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to investigate the relations between leaders’ communication styles and charismatic leadership, human-oriented leadership (leader’s consideration), task-oriented leadership (leader’s initiating structure), and leadership outcomes.MethodologyA survey was conducted among 279 employees of a governmental organization. The following six main communication styles were operationalized: verbal aggressiveness, expressiveness, preciseness, assuredness, supportiveness, and argumentativeness. Regression analyses were employed to test three main hypotheses.FindingsIn line with expectations, the study showed that charismatic and human-oriented leadership are mainly communicative, while task-oriented leadership is significantly less communicative. The communication styles were strongly and differentially related to knowledge sharing behaviors, perceived leader performance, satisfaction with the leader, and subordinate’s team commitment. Multiple regression analyses showed that the leadership styles mediated the relations between the communication styles and leadership outcomes. However, leader’s preciseness explained variance in perceived leader performance and satisfaction with the leader above and beyond the leadership style variables.ImplicationsThis study offers potentially invaluable input for leadership training programs by showing the importance of leader’s supportiveness, assuredness, and preciseness when communicating with subordinates.Originality/valueAlthough one of the core elements of leadership is interpersonal communication, this study is one of the first to use a comprehensive communication styles instrument in the study of leadership.

The Dutch HEXACO Personality Inventory: Psychometric Properties, Self–Other Agreement, and Relations With Psychopathy Among Low and High Acquaintanceship Dyads

The HEXACO model (Lee & Ashton, 2004, 2006) of personality structure is based on 6 dimensions that have been recovered in lexical studies of personality in various languages. In this study, we examined a Dutch version of the HEXACO Personality Inventory (HEXACO–PI; Lee & Ashton, 2004) and found it to have satisfactory psychometric properties. Additionally, we examined the level of self–other agreement for the HEXACO–PI variables and the relation of HEXACO–PI Honesty-Humility with the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (Williams, Paulhus, & Hare, 2007) at varying levels of self–other acquaintanceship. Self–other agreement was found to be high, especially among dyads with high levels of acquaintanceship. Self-reported and other-reported Honesty-Humility and Emotionality were the strongest predictors of psychopathy. The relation between other-reported Honesty-Humility and self-reported psychopathy was near zero for dyads with low levels of acquaintanceship but was moderately strong for dyads with high levels of acquaintanceship.

More than the Big Five: egoism and the HEXACO model of personality

Egoism is a personality trait that is associated with self‐enriching and self‐centred behaviours. Research has suggested that egoism lies beyond the Big Five personality factors. Recently, the HEXACO model of personality has been proposed as an alternative to the Big Five model. In three studies, the relation between the HEXACO Personality Inventory and egoism, conceptualized using three different questionnaires (DPQ Egoism, SPI Egotism and the Egoism Scale), is investigated. In all three studies, the HEXACO Honesty–Humility factor scale was the most important predictor of egoism. Additionally, in two studies in which FFM measures were used, the HEXACO Personality Inventory explained more variance in egoism than did the FFPI (Study 2) and the NEO‐PI‐R (Study 3). Copyright

Broad versus narrow traits: Conscientiousness and honesty–humility as predictors of academic criteria

Recent research has suggested that the six–dimensional personality model, and especially the dimension Honesty–Humility/Integrity, adds incremental validity to the prediction of important criteria. We expected both this dimension and the dimension Conscientiousness to explain incremental variance in two academic criteria, namely grade point average (GPA) and counterproductive academic behaviour (CAB). In addition, we expected the more specific, so–called narrow traits of Conscientiousness and Honesty–Humility/Integrity to be stronger predictors of academic criteria than the broad traits. To test these expectations, two studies were conducted using the HEXACO Personality Inventory Revised (HEXACO–PI–R) and the Multicultural Personality Test—Big Six (MPT–BS). The results confirmed our expectations and suggest that academic criteria may be predicted with greater accuracy by focusing on the narrow traits of Conscientiousness and Honesty–Humility/Integrity. Copyright

Rethinking Trait Conceptions of Social Desirability Scales: Impression Management as an Expression of Honesty-Humility

Numerous researchers have noted that, instead of response sets or styles, most social desirability scales seem to measure personality traits instead. In two studies, we investigated the substantive interpretation of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding in terms of the HEXACO model of personality. Because of its focus on honesty and integrity, the Impression Management (IM) scale was hypothesized to be mainly related to HEXACO Honesty-Humility. In the main study among 1,106 students and well-acquainted others (friends, family, or partners), positive self–other agreement correlations were found for both IM (r = .45) and Self-Deceptive Enhancement (SDE; r = .34), supporting a trait conception of IM and SDE. In both self- and other ratings, the most important predictors of SDE were (low) Emotionality, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness. IM was associated with Conscientiousness and Agreeableness, but Honesty-Humility was by far its most important predictor. In a subsample (n = 465), Honesty-Humility and IM were unrelated to GPA.

The Content and Dimensionality of Communication Styles

A multiphase lexical study was conducted to uncover the key dimensions of communication styles. In the first two phases, adjectives and verbs were selected on the basis of their ability to describe communication styles. In the third phase, a study was conducted using 441 respondents who provided self-ratings on 744 adjectives and 837 verbs. Adjectives and verbs were submitted to principal components analysis, followed by orthogonal Procrustes rotation to establish within-sample replicability, which provided evidence of four to seven main communication style dimensions. The seven communication style dimensions form the acronym PRESENT, for preciseness, reflectiveness, expressiveness, supportiveness, emotionality, niceness, and threateningness. As expected, scales based on the seven dimensions were meaningfully related to the interpersonal but not the intrapersonal scales from the Communication Style Scale. The results are discussed in light of existing communication style scales, the interpersonal circumplex, and personality structure.

The Communication Styles Inventory (CSI) A Six-Dimensional Behavioral Model of Communication Styles and Its Relation With Personality

In this study, a six-dimensional model of communication styles is proposed and operationalized using the Communication Styles Inventory (CSI). The CSI distinguishes between six domain-level communicative behavior scales, Expressiveness, Preciseness, Verbal Aggressiveness, Questioningness, Emotionality, and Impression Manipulativeness, each consisting of four facet-level scales. Based on factor and item analyses, the CSI is shown to be an adequate instrument, with all reliabilities of the domain-level scales surpassing the .80 level. Consistent with the behavioral view espoused in this study, the CSI scales showed medium to high levels of convergent validity with lexical communication marker scales and behavior-oriented communication scales and discriminant validity with nonbehavioral intrapersonal cognitions and feelings vis-à-vis communication. In addition, personality, as operationalized using the HEXACO Personality Inventory—Revised (HEXACO-PI-R) and Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R), was found to have medium to strong associations with communication styles, supporting the integration of the trait and communication styles perspectives.