Situational Strength: Past and Present

Situational Strength:

Past and Present

Reeshad S. Dalal

Conferinţa Asociația Psihologilor din România

November 12, 2021

Thank you for inviting me!

Overview of Today’s Talk

⚫ Introduction to the concept of situational strength

⚫ My empirical work on situational strength

– Situational strength at multiple levels of analysis:

occupation, organization, and job

– An unanticipated result, followed by a replication and

extension

– Other relevant research

– Practical implications

Situational Strength: Basic Idea

⚫ The situational “press” can be so strong that

everyone behaves similarly (strong

situation)

– If everyone behaves similarly due to the

situation, dispositions (e.g., personality) will not

predict behavior well

Situational Strength: Formal

Definition

⚫ Implicit or explicit cues provided by

external entities regarding the

desirability of potential behaviors (Meyer,

Dalal, & Hermida, 2010, p. 122)

An Example

What do people do at a...?

Situational Strength: History⚫ Idea expressed in a rudimentary form by

many famous social scientists:

– Max Weber (1922)o Bureaucracies provide a set of rationally

developed, rule-based procedures designed specifically to overcome the processing shortcomings of individuals

o …thereby increasing efficiency but also minimizing individual freedom of choice

– Carl Rogers (1954)o Traits necessary for success in therapy (e.g.,

openness to experience, internal locus of control) are “permitted to emerge” when situations provide psychological safety and freedom (p. 256)

– Stanley Milgram (1965, p. 74)o “One aim of the [obedience] research was to

study behavior in a strong situation of deep consequence to the participants” (p. 74)

Situational Strength: More History

⚫ But typically attributed to Walter Mischel

– Personality and Assessment (1968)

o Personality does not matter!

o Under what circumstances does personality matter?

Situational Strength:

Yet More History

⚫ Argued to be “the most important situational moderating variable” (Snyder & Ickes, 1985, p. 904)

– Personality predicts behavior more strongly in weak situations than in strong situations

⚫ But…

– This conclusion may have been “prematurely accepted” or even become a “dogma” (Cooper & Withey, 2009, p. 68, 70)

– Very little work in organizational settings

– That’s where I came in

Primary Hypothesis Tested in

Several Studies

Personality

Job Performance

Situational Strength

Stripped down to their core…

Example #1:

Occupation Level (O*NET)

Personality1. Conscientiousness

Job Performance1. Overall Performance

2. Task Performance

Situational Strength1. Constraints

2. Consequences

Meyer, Dalal, and Bonaccio (2009, Journal of Organizational Behavior)

Individual Employee Level

Occupation Level

⚫ Constraints on decision and action (7 items; α = 0.72; Obs. Range = 20-59)

– E.g.: “How much decision-making freedom, without supervision, does the job offer?” (reverse-scored)

⚫ Consequences of decisions and actions (7 items; α = 0.79; Obs. Range = 43-85)

– E.g.: “How much responsibility is there for the health and safety of others in this job?”

Situational Strength1. Constraints

2. Consequences

⚫ Examples of strongoccupations

– Airline pilots

– Nuclear equipment operation technicians

⚫ Examples of weakoccupations

– Poets, lyricists, and creative writers

– Personnel recruiters

⚫ Meta-analysis of single-occupation primary studies of conscientiousness-performance relationship

– Overall Performance

o K = 82, N = 10,943, r = 0.15, ρ = 0.19

o Q = 137.7 (p < 0.05), 90% CV = 0.08, 0.30

– Task Performance

o K = 33, N = 4,528, r = 0.13, ρ = 0.15

o Q = 74.1 (p < 0.05), 90% CV = 0.08, 0.30

– Results similar to those of previous meta-analyses

– Absence of homogeneity suggests study-level moderators

Job Performance1. Overall Performance

2. Task Performance+

⚫ WLS regression

– Outcome is rC,P

– Predictor is Constraints or Consequences

β = -0.16, p < 0.05

β = -0.23, p < 0.05

β = -0.16, p < 0.10

β = -0.21, p < 0.05

Example #2:

Organization Level (Climate Strength)

Job Performance1. Safety Compliance Behavior

2. Safety Helping Behavior

Situational Strength1. Safety Climate Strength

Lee & Dalal (2016, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology)

Organization Level

⚫ Sample

– Level 1 N = 964, Level 2 N = 17

– 15% female, mean age = 38

– Predominantly manufacturing jobs across

various industries (e.g., food, heavy machinery,

chemicals) in Korea

⚫Measures

– Conscientiousness (Saucier’s, 1994, Minimarkers)

– Safety climate (Griffin & Neal, 2000)

o Climate Strength = -1*SD of within-org. scores

– Safety compliance behavior (Neal & Griffin, 2006)

– Safety helping behavior (Hofmann et al., 2003) 19

Even though we use a

dispersion model (Chan, 1998):

Median rwg(j) = 0.76, ICC (1) =

0.35, and ICC (2) = 0.97

Still, power to detect cross-

level interaction (Mathieu et

al., 2012) > 0.90

Control Variables: Safety climate level (L2),

Organization size (L2), Number of respondents per

organization (L2), and Age (L1)

γ = -0.65, p < 0.01

Control Variables: Safety climate level (L2),

Organization size (L2), Number of respondents per

organization (L2), and Age (L1)

γ = -0.53, p < 0.01

Example #3:

Job Level (Perceived Situational Strength)

2. Agreeableness

Job Performance1. Organizational

Citizenship Behavior

2. Counterproductive Work

Behavior

Situational Strength1. Clarity

2. Consistency

3. Constraints

4. Consequences

Study 4 of Meyer et al. (2014, Journal of Management)

= Job Level

+ for OCB

- for CWB

- for OCB

+ for CWB

⚫ Sample

– N = 588

– Variety of job titles, industries, and locations

within the U.S.

⚫Measures

– Conscientiousness & Agreeableness (Goldberg’s,

1999, IPIP)

– Organizational Citizenship Behavior (Williams &

Anderson, 1991)

– Counterproductive Work Behavior (Bennett &

Robinson, 2000’s measure of Workplace Deviance

Behavior)23

⚫Measures (Continued)

– Situational Strength

o Original scale, validated in Studies 1-3 of this

paper (current study is Study 4)

o “Four Cs” (from Meyer et al., 2010, theory paper)

❑Clarity (α = 0.94; 7 items; e.g., “On this job, specific

information about work-related responsibilities is provided”)

❑Consistency (α = 0.91; 7 items; e.g., “On this job, different

sources of work information are always consistent with

each other”)

❑Constraints (α = 0.94; 7 items; e.g., “On this job, an

employee is prevented from making his/her own

decisions”)

❑Consequences (α = 0.89; 7 items; e.g., “On this job, an

employee’s decisions have extremely important

consequences for other people”)

2. Agreeableness

Behavior

2. Consistency

3. Constraints

4. Consequences

+ for OCB

- for CWB

= Job Levelβ = -0.14, p < 0.05

- for OCB

+ for CWB

2. Agreeableness

Behavior

2. Consistency

3. Constraints

4. Consequences

= Job Levelβ = -0.13, p < 0.05

+ for OCB

- for CWB

- for OCB

+ for CWB

2. Agreeableness

Behavior

2. Consistency

3. Constraints

4. Consequences

= Job Levelβ = -0.12, p < 0.05

+ for OCB

- for CWB

- for OCB

+ for CWB

2. Agreeableness

Behavior

2. Consistency

3. Constraints

4. Consequences

= Job Levelβ = -0.09, p < 0.05

+ for OCB

- for CWB

- for OCB

+ for CWB

2. Agreeableness

Behavior

2. Consistency

3. Constraints

4. Consequences

= Job Levelβ = -0.07, p < 0.10

+ for OCB

- for CWB

- for OCB

+ for CWB

2. Agreeableness

Behavior

2. Consistency

3. Constraints

4. Consequences

= Job Levelβ = -0.10, p < 0.05

+ for OCB

- for CWB

- for OCB

+ for CWB

2. Agreeableness

Behavior

2. Consistency

3. Constraints

4. Consequences

= Job Level

β = -0.10, p < 0.05

+ for OCB

- for CWB

- for OCB

+ for CWB

2. Agreeableness

Behavior

2. Consistency

3. Constraints

4. Consequences

= Job Levelβ = -0.07, p < 0.05

+ for OCB

- for CWB

- for OCB

+ for CWB

Expected (and Found) Shape/Form of Interaction

2. Agreeableness

Behavior

2. Consistency

3. Constraints

4. Consequences

= Job Level

Oh no!!!

β = -0.18, p < 0.05

+ for OCB

- for CWB

- for OCB

+ for CWB

2. Agreeableness

Behavior

2. Consistency

3. Constraints

4. Consequences

= Job Level

Oh no!!!

β = -0.15, p < 0.05

+ for OCB

- for CWB

- for OCB

+ for CWB

2. Agreeableness

Behavior

2. Consistency

3. Constraints

4. Consequences

= Job Level

Oh no!!!

β = -0.25, p < 0.05

+ for OCB

- for CWB

- for OCB

+ for CWB

2. Agreeableness

Behavior

2. Consistency

3. Constraints

4. Consequences

= Job Level

Oh no!!!

β = -0.15, p < 0.05

+ for OCB

- for CWB

- for OCB

+ for CWB

2. Agreeableness

Behavior

2. Consistency

3. Constraints

4. Consequences

= Job Level

Oh no!!!

β = -0.09, p < 0.05

+ for OCB

- for CWB

- for OCB

+ for CWB

2. Agreeableness

Behavior

2. Consistency

3. Constraints

4. Consequences

= Job Level

Oh no!!!

β = -0.11, p < 0.05

+ for OCB

- for CWB

- for OCB

+ for CWB

2. Agreeableness

Behavior

2. Consistency

3. Constraints

4. Consequences

= Job Level

Oh no!!!

β = -0.20, p < 0.05

+ for OCB

- for CWB

- for OCB

+ for CWB

2. Agreeableness

Behavior

2. Consistency

3. Constraints

4. Consequences

= Job Level

Oh no!!!

β = -0.11, p < 0.05

+ for OCB

- for CWB

- for OCB

+ for CWB

Expected Shape/Form of Interaction

Found Shape/Form of Interaction

Example #4:

Job Level (Perceived Situational Strength)

Personality (T1)1. Conscientiousness

2. Agreeableness

3. Emotional Stability

Job Performance (T2) 1. Counterproductive Work

Behavior –

Organizationally Directed

Behavior – Interpersonally

Directed

Task-Performance-Focused

Situational Strength (T1 & T2)1. Clarity

2. Constraints

Dalal et al. (2020, Journal of Business and Psychology)

Individual Employee

Level = Job Level

Negative

Affect

Counterproductive-Work-Behavior-

Focused Situational Strength (T2)1. Organizationally Directed

2. Interpersonally Directed

OK, let’s take it step-by-step!

⚫Goals:

– Replicate “anomalous”

counterproductive-work-behavior-related

findings from Meyer et al. (2014)

– Extend situational strength theory

⚫Basic Idea (Part 1):

Strong situation blocks one outlet for poor

performance (e.g., poor task performance)

Employees predisposed toward such behavior

experience “reactance” (negative affect)

They displace their low-performance predisposition to a

second outlet (e.g., counterproductive work behavior),

thereby intensifying low performance in the second domain…

…unless that second outlet, too, is blocked by

a strong situation

⚫Basic Idea (Part 2):– Need to match the (strong) situation to the

performance outcome

– The “4 Cs” model of situational strength (Meyer et al.,

2010, 2014) was developed with task performance in

– It may generalize to organizational citizenship

behavior

o Going “above and beyond” expectations on work tasks

– But it does not generalize as far as

counterproductive work behavior

o And in fact is likely to have unintended consequences

o Therefore, need a different way to create strong situation

for counterproductive work behavior47

⚫ Sample

– N = 369

– Variety of job titles, industries, and locations

within the U.S. (54%) and India (46%)

– Two timepoints, separated by a fortnight

⚫Measures

– Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, &

Emotional Stability (John et al.’s, 1991, BFI)

– Counterproductive Work Behavior (Bennett &

Robinson, 2000’s measure of Workplace Deviance

Behavior)

⚫Measures (Continued)

– Task-Performance-Focused Situational

Strength (Meyer et al., 2014)

o Clarity (T1 α = 0.93, T2 α = 0.95)

o Constraints (T1 α = 0.95, T2 α = 0.96)

o Did not measure Consistency or

Consequences

– Counterproductive-Work-Behavior-

Focused Situational Strength

o Extent to which the organization discourages

versus encourages counterproductive work

behavior (subsequently reverse-scored)

o α = 0.96 for both organizationally- and

interpersonally-directed forms49

2. Agreeableness

Behavior –

Directed

2. Constraints

Negative

Affect

When examining only counterproductive-work-behavior-

focused situational strength…

We expect the “typical” form of interaction for situational strength

Statistically significant interaction with expected shape/form

observed in all 6 cases (3 personality traits x 2 forms of

counterproductive work behavior and corresponding form of

situational strength)

2. Agreeableness

Behavior –

Directed

2. Constraints

Negative

Affect

When examining only task-performance-focused situational strength…

We expect to replicate the “anomalous” results from Meyer et al. (2014)

Expected shape/form of interaction observed in all 24 cases (3

personality traits x 2 forms of counterproductive work behavior x 2

forms of task-performance-focused situational strength x 2

timepoints)

Statistically significant in 15/24 cases (8/8 for Conscientiousness,

6/8 for Agreeableness, and 1/8 for Emotional Stability)

⚫Turning now to the moderated

mediation model…

– Mediated model with Stage 1 moderation

o Shape/form of interaction always as expected

o Generally statistically significant for

Conscientiousness and Agreeableness but

not for Emotional Stability

– Mediated model with Stage 2 moderation

o Shape/form of interaction always as expected

o Always statistically significant

⚫Exploratory analysis examining 3-way

interactions by country (U.S. vs. India)

– First stage:

o 3-way interactions never statistically

significant

o That is, 2-way interaction generalizes across

countries

– Second stage:

o 3-way interactions always statistically

significant (stronger in India) but 2-way

interactions also always remained significant

o That is, 2-way interaction is stronger in India

but remains significant in the U.S. 55

Other Related Research

⚫ Sources (antecedents) of situational strength – Alaybek et al. (2017, Frontiers in Psychology)

⚫ Restricted variance interactions – Keeler et al.

(2019, Journal of Applied Psychology)

⚫ “Personality strength” – Dalal et al. (2015, Journal of

Management) and Green et al. (2019, Journal of Management)

⚫ Examining the (mis)fit between actual and

preferred levels of situational strength – Kim et

al. (in progress)

Practical Implications

⚫ Personality and other non-cognitive

individual differences are not great

predictors of job applicants’ success in

jobs/occupations/organizations

characterized by high situational strength

⚫ Potential divergence in situational strength

facet scores as a function of organizational

hierarchy

– E.g., CEOs may experience high consequences

but low clarity, consistency, and constraints

Practical Implications (Continued)

⚫ Situational strength on a job can change

over time as a function of HR practices

– Telework and flexible work schedules may

decrease situational strength

– Training, socialization, performance monitoring,

and pay-for-performance may increase

situational strength

– To what extent are various practices within an

organization’s HRM system aligned vs.

misaligned?

Practical Implications (Continued)

⚫ Preferences for situational strength

– May differ

o Across employees: Employee X may want autonomy

whereas Employee Y may want structure

o Within an employee over time: An employee may want

more structure during the first few months on the job

and more autonomy when he or she is highly

experienced

– Misfit between actual and preferred levels of

situational strength may lead to stress,

dissatisfaction, and intent to quit

Questions?

Situational Strength: Past and Present

Documents

Situational Judgement Test Practice Paper - COPDEND Situational Judgement... · 1 Dentistry Situational Judgement Test 2016 Situational Judgement Test Practice Paper Instructions

Situational Leadershipvideo.glceurope.com/download/20_jan_y2017/Situational... · 2020. 4. 14. · Situational Leadership MasterClass John Alan Davis Founder & Managing Director Scott

Leadership Chapter 5 - Situational Approach. Overview Situational Approach Perspective Leadership Styles Developmental Levels How Does the Situational

Situational Leadership

Situational Influences

Situational planning

Situational Dialogues

What are Situational Judgment Tests? Range of Situational

Situational Leadership

Situational Web

A TEST OF SITUATIONAL STRENGTH ON ADAPTABILITY AND

22-Situational Leadership Tab-Situational Leadership II - deck v4 10.28.2015

Journal of Management - Pennsylvania State University Dalal- - Hermida -… · 122 Journal of Management / January 2010 “situational strength” is among the most important situational

situational strength based on culture as a moderator of the personality-job performance

Gender Composition, Situational Strength, and Team ...media.terry.uga.edu/socrates/publications/2013/06/... · sion-making criteria. The most common internal decision-making criterion

Situational Analysis Programs & Services: Excellence ...helenacollege.edu/abouthc/docs/Situational-Analysis-Programs-and... · Situational Analysis Programs & Services: Excellence

Situational Awareness Guide - MasteryUnitedGamers.commasteryunitedgamers.com/.../mug15SituationalAwarenessGuide.pdf · Situational Awareness Guide 1. So, what is Situational Awareness?

Trusting the “Look and Feel”: Situational Normality ...doras.dcu.ie/22238/1/Baer_et_al_AestheticsTrust.pdf · mentor is with work relationships, whether past statements and actions

Situational opportunity

Situational Archetypes