Situational Strength: Past and Present

1

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

2

3

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)

4

5

An Example

What do people do at a...?

6

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)

7

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?

8

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

9

Personality

_

Job Performance

Situational Strength

Stripped down to their core…

+

Example #1:

Occupation Level (O*NET)

10

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

11

⚫ 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

12

⚫ 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+

13

⚫ WLS regression

– Outcome is rC,P

– Predictor is Constraints or Consequences

14

β = -0.16, p < 0.05

15

β = -0.23, p < 0.05

16

β = -0.16, p < 0.10

17

β = -0.21, p < 0.05

Example #2:

Organization Level (Climate Strength)

18


_

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

20


_




+

Control Variables: Safety climate level (L2),

Organization size (L2), Number of respondents per

organization (L2), and Age (L1)

γ = -0.65, p < 0.01

21


_




+

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)

22


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”)

24

25


2. Agreeableness




Behavior


2. Consistency

3. Constraints

4. Consequences

+ for OCB

- for CWB


= Job Levelβ = -0.14, p < 0.05

- for OCB

+ for CWB

26


2. Agreeableness




Behavior


2. Consistency

3. Constraints

4. Consequences


= Job Levelβ = -0.13, p < 0.05

+ for OCB

- for CWB

- for OCB

+ for CWB

27


2. Agreeableness




Behavior


2. Consistency

3. Constraints

4. Consequences


= Job Levelβ = -0.12, p < 0.05

+ for OCB

- for CWB

- for OCB

+ for CWB

28


2. Agreeableness




Behavior


2. Consistency

3. Constraints

4. Consequences


= Job Levelβ = -0.09, p < 0.05

+ for OCB

- for CWB

- for OCB

+ for CWB

29


2. Agreeableness




Behavior


2. Consistency

3. Constraints

4. Consequences


= Job Levelβ = -0.07, p < 0.10

+ for OCB

- for CWB

- for OCB

+ for CWB

30


2. Agreeableness




Behavior


2. Consistency

3. Constraints

4. Consequences


= Job Levelβ = -0.10, p < 0.05

+ for OCB

- for CWB

- for OCB

+ for CWB

31


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

32


2. Agreeableness




Behavior


2. Consistency

3. Constraints

4. Consequences


= Job Levelβ = -0.07, p < 0.05

+ for OCB

- for CWB

- for OCB

+ for CWB

33

Expected (and Found) Shape/Form of Interaction

34


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

35


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

36


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

37


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

38


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

39


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

40


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

41


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

42

Expected Shape/Form of Interaction

Found Shape/Form of Interaction

Example #4:

Job Level (Perceived Situational Strength)

43

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

(T2)

Counterproductive-Work-Behavior-

Focused Situational Strength (T2)1. Organizationally Directed

2. Interpersonally Directed

_+

__

44

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

45

⚫Basic Idea (Part 1):

46

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

mind

– 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)

48

⚫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

50


2. Agreeableness



Behavior –




Directed



2. Constraints

Negative

Affect

(T2)




_+

_+

_

When examining only counterproductive-work-behavior-

focused situational strength…

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

_

51

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)

52


2. Agreeableness



Behavior –




Directed



2. Constraints

Negative

Affect

(T2)




_+

__

When examining only task-performance-focused situational strength…

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

_

53

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

54

⚫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)

56

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

57

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?

58

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

59

Questions?

60

Documents

Situational Strength: Past and Present