Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Personality and Situations in Co-worker Preference: Similarity and Complementarity in Worker Compatibility

  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Guided by fit-oriented personality theories, we asked with whom people prefer to work, given their own and others' personality traits and in light of trait-relevant work situations. Participants (N = 185) completed the Personality Research Form (Jackson, 1989) and rated preference for hypothetical co-workers at opposite poles of Dominance, Affiliation, Autonomy, Defendence, and Abasement in simulated job settings varying in work proximity and supervisory status. As expected, judges preferred co-workers providing opportunity for trait expression (e.g., affiliative judges preferred affiliative co-workers), especially when expecting to work together and in light of who would be in charge (e.g., low-autonomous judges preferred dominant supervisors). Use of personality data in team building is discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Adler, S. (1996). Personality and work behavior: Exploring the linkages.Applied Psychology: An International Review,45, 207–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allport, G.W. (1937). Personality: A Psychological Interpretation.New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakan, D. (1966). The Duality of Human Existence: Isolation and Communion in Western Man. Boston: Beacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis.Personnel Psychology,44, 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrick, M.R., Stewart, G.L., Neubert, M., & Mount, M.K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work team processes and team effectiveness.Journal of Applied Psychology,83, 377–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, T.N., & Green, S.G. (1996). Development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test.Academy of Management Journal,39,1538–1567.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bem, D..J, & Funder, D.C. (1978). Predicting more of the people more of the time: Assessing the personality of situations. Psychological Review,85, 354–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bluhm, C., Widiger, T.A., & Miele, G.M. (1990). Interpersonal complementarity and individual differences.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,58, 464–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, D. (1971). The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, D. (1997). An overview (and underview) of research and theory within the attraction paradigm. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,14, 417–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R.C. (1969).Interaction Concepts of Personality. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatman, J.A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of personorganization fit.Academy of Management Review,14,333–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, D.V., & Bedeian, A.G. (1991). Predicting job performance across organizations: The interaction of work orientation and psychological climate.Journal of Management,17, 589–600. 242 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, C.R., & Dion, K.L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis.Small Group Research,22, 175–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foa, U.G., & Foa, E.B. (1974). Societal Structures of the Mind. Springfield. IL: Charles C. Thomas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guion, R.M., & Gottier, R.F. (1965). Validity of personality measures in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology,18,135–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzzo, R.A., & Dickson, M.W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness.Annual Review of Psychology,47, 307–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, R., & Shelton, D. (1998). A socioanalytic perspective on job performance.Human Performance, 11,129–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hough, L. M. (1992). The “big five” personality variables—construct confusion: Description versus prediction.Human Performance,5,139–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hough, L.M., Eaton, N.K., Dunnette, M.D., Kamp, J.D., & McCloy, R.A. (1990). Criterionrelated validities of personality constructs and the effects of response distortion on those validities Monograph.Journal of Applied Psychology,75, 581–595.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iaffaldano, M.T., & Muchinsky, P.M. (1985). Job satisfaction and job performance: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin,97,251–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, D.N. (1989). Personality Research Form Manual. Port Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiesler, D.J. (1983). The 1982 interpersonal circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions. Psychological Review,90, 185–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality.New York: Ronald Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, J.M., & Moreland, R.L. (1990). Progress in small group research. Annual Review of Psychology,41, 585–634.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindzey, G., & Byrne, D. (1968). Measurement of social choice and interpersonal attractiveness. In G Lindzey & E Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. II, pp. 452–525. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClane, W.E. (1991). The interaction of leader and member characteristics in the leadermember exchange LMX) model of leadership. Small Group Research,22, 283–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, D.C., Atkinson, J.W., Clark, R.W., & Lowell, E.L. (1953). The Achievement Motive.New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Motowidlo, S.J., Borman, W.C., & Schmit, M.J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance.Human Performance,10,71–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muchinsky, P.M., & Monahan, C.J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit.Journal of Vocational Behavior,31, 268–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, H. (1938).Explorations in Personality. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orford, J. (1986). The rules of interpersonal complementarity: Does hostility beget hostility and dominance, submission?Psychological Review,93,365–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, J., & Byrne, D. (1970). Attraction toward dominant and submissive strangers: Similarity versus complementarity.Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 4,108–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plutchik, R., & Conte, H.R. (1997). Introduction: Circumplex models of personality and emotions. In R. Plutchik, H.R. Conte (Eds.), Circumplex Models of Personality and Emotions, pp. 1–14. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenman, R.H. (1978). The interview method of assessment of the coronary-prone behavior pattern. In T.M. Dembroski, S.M. Weiss, J.L. Shields, S.G. Haynes, M. Feinleib (Eds.), Coronary Prone Behavior pp. 55–69. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, K.H., Lynch, D., Coplan, R., Rose-Krasnor, L. et al. (1994). “Birds of a feather... ”: Behavioral concordances and preferential personal attraction in children.Child Development, 65, 1778–1785.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rushton, J.P. (1995). Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective.New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European community.Journal of Applied Psychology,82, 30–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, B. (1983). Interactional psychology and organizational behavior. In L.L. Cummings, B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior Vol. 5 pp. 1–31.Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place.Personnel Psychology,40, 437–453. 243 ROBERT P. TETT AND PATRICK J. MURPHY

    Google Scholar 

  • Seashore, S. (1954). Group Cohesiveness in the Industrial Work-group. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, M., & Ickes, W. (1985). Personality and social behavior. In G. Lindzey, E. Aronson (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology Vol. II, pp. 883–947.New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, H.S. (1953). The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry.New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and crosssituational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation.Journal of Research in Personality,34,397–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tett, R.P., Jackson, D.N., & Rothstein M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review.Personnel Psychology,44, 703–742.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tett, R.P., Jackson, D.N., Rothstein, M., & Reddon, J.R. (1999). Meta-analysis of bi-directional relations in personality-job performance research,Human Performance,12, 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J.W., & Kelley H.H. (1959). The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trapnell, P.D., & Wiggins, J.S. (1990). Extension of the Interpersonal Adjective Scales to include the Big-Five dimensions of personality.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,781–790.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wetzel, C.G., Schwartz, D., & Vasu, E.S. (1979). Roommate compatibility: Is there an ideal relationship? Journal of Applied Social Psychology,9, 432–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, J.S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,37, 395–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, J.S., & Trobst, K.K. (1997). When is a circumplex an “interpersonal circumplex”? The case of supportive actions. In R Plutchik, HR Conte, et al. (Eds.). Circumplex models of Personality and Emotions pp. 57–80. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodworth, R.S. (1937). Psychology.New York: Holt.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Tulsa, 600 S. College, Tulsa, OK, 74104

    Robert P. Tett

  2. University of Illinois–Chicago, USA

    Patrick J. Murphy

Authors
  1. Robert P. Tett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrick J. Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert P. Tett.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tett, R.P., Murphy, P.J. Personality and Situations in Co-worker Preference: Similarity and Complementarity in Worker Compatibility. Journal of Business and Psychology 17, 223–243 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019685515745

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019685515745

Search

Navigation