Validity of Six Openness Facets in Predicting Work Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

To illustrate the importance of facet-level investigations in predicting organizational outcomes and the need for more primary studies on this topic, we conducted a meta-analysis that took an exploratory look at differential relationships among 7 organizational criteria and Openness traits varying in breadth. Nine Openness predictors—the global dimension, 2 aspects (intellect and culture), and 6 facets (intellectual efficiency, ingenuity, curiosity, aesthetics, tolerance, and depth)—were examined in relations with various organizational criteria such as traditional performance outcomes (task performance, contextual performance, counterproductive work behavior), turnover, leadership effectiveness, training performance, and adaptive performance. Our results support the idea that Openness facets could exhibit differential validity for many organizational outcomes.

Acknowledgments

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analyses.

Notes

We chose these criterion variables because they have received the most research attention in the applied literature and bear significant practical implications for organizations. Task, contextual, and counterproductive performances are part of the modern view of the job performance (e.g., Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). Training has been recognized as one of the performance outcomes in previous meta-analysis works (e.g., Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). Leadership and turnover have particular relevance to human resource management; they often affect the effective functioning of organizations in their own unique ways. Finally, adaptive performance is an emerging criterion relevant in today's global, fast-paced, and highly competitive business environment.

Some studies (e.g., Berry, Page, & Sackett, 2007; Burke & Witt, 2002) that used measures of overall job performance did not report sufficient information regarding whether their measure would include aspects of contextual performance (e.g., helping behavior, commitment). When such information was available (e.g., authors reported specific performance or competency dimensions), we noticed in several studies that the overall performance measures were in fact reflective of task performance without many (if any) contextual performance considerations (e.g., Barrick, Stewart, & Piotrowski, 2002; Kieffer, Schinka, & Curtiss, 2004; Tyler & Newcombe, 2006). A few studies, however, did use overall job performance measures that covered both task and contextual performance dimensions (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1993).