Overview of the Chapters

Chapter two provides a detailed summary of the dimensional structure of CWB and outlines the empirical evidence supporting the dimensionality. It provides an overview of the stress- emotion model (Fox & Spector, 2005) of CWB and outlines the empirical evidence for

dispositional predictors of CWB. Chapter two proposes that the theoretical explanation of the FFM does little to, in an a priori sense, reason for the existence of each of the personality dimensions and there is therefore the requirement to rely on the empirical evidence of the predictive validity of the FFM with CWB rather than on the theoretical links between this model and causal models of CWB. Chapter two then analyses the evidence supporting the dispositional predictors for CWB and concludes that an expansion of the CWB research is required to account for relevant dispositional predictors of CWB and its interpersonal and organisational dimensions.

Chapter three is a theoretical chapter and provides a detailed summary of the OCB. It outlines the relevant dimensional structure of this concept and argues that employers are likely to be optimally assisted by identifying the dispositional predictors of CWB at the global and dimensional level. The chapter argues that the theoretical models for OCB support

the influence of pro-social dispositional tendencies in an OCB outcome. Chapter three concludes by arguing the need for research that is able to inform employers of the relevant dispositional predictors for OCB and its interpersonal and organisational dimension.

Chapter four introduces the six factor model of personality; the HEXACO. It outlines how the model was derived and articulates the theoretical basis that has been proposed to explain the existence of the six domains. The chapter then argues that the HEXACO’s ability,

theoretically and empirically, to provide an assessment of antagonism verses altruism and the willingness to exploit others is likely to make it a superior model in the assessment of both CWB and OCB. Chapter four outlines the empirical evidence supportive of the HEXACO’s ability to predict CWB and it details the lack of empirical research for the HEXACO in the OCB domain. It argues that from a theoretical standpoint the HEXACO is likely to provide the most parsimonious assessment of CWB and OCB but details the requirement to evaluate it against other established and important dispositional predictors of CWB and OCB.

Chapter five outlines considerations for the potential for socially desirable responding in applicants’ completion of personality tests in the employment selection context. It identifies the empirical evidence that suggests that individuals can and do alter their responding on personality instruments in an employment selection context. Chapter five details the competing theories that the altered responding seen in employment selection is a form of response bias and the counter argument that the responding is actually a substantive

personality function that has shared variance with other relevant dispositional predictors. The chapter concludes by detailing a process that tests whether the relevant personality predictors provide a valid and reliable assessment of CWB and OCB that is not significantly distorted by response bias. This chapter argues that there is a lack of evidence with the criterion variables

of CWB and OCB to determine the potential effect of impression management on these criteria and argues that in order to ensure the applicability of personality tests in personal selection content, there is the requirement to ensure the maintenance of the factor structure of the instrument, consideration of the normative changes due to context and also the

requirement to assess the impact of impression management on the criteria of interest; in this case CWB and OCB.

Chapter six reviews the bandwidth fidelity debate in the personnel selection literature. This debate centres on competing positions that advocate for assessment at the broad domain level of personality and the counter position that advocates for assessment at the narrow facet level. The chapter argues that there are equally strong theoretical views to support both positions and it identifies that there is a lack of empirical evidence assessing these competing positions when CWB and OCB are the outcome variables. The chapter argues that it is likely that facet level assessment will provide increased criterion related validity and proposes to contribute to the empirical literature with such an assessment.

Chapter seven is the first of the empirical chapters and focuses on assessing the parsimony of the HEXACO over the FFM in the prediction of CWB. It reprises the theoretical and

empirical evidence, and outlines the study that was conducted to determine if the HEXACO provides this parsimonious assessment. It finds that both the HEXACO and the FFM explain significant variance in the CWB outcome variable and it concludes that there is little

difference between the two in the amount of variance that is accounted for. The chapter also concludes that the predictive validity of both the HEXACO and the FFM models for the CWB is significantly improved by an assessment of self-control and trait anger.

Chapter eight details the empirical study that was carried out to determine if the HEXACO provides a more parsimonious assessment of OCB than the FFM. It revisits the theoretical and empirical literature and details the empirical study. It concludes that like CWB, the HEXACO and the FFM account for comparable variance in the OCB outcome variables and one cannot reasonably considered to provide a more parsimonious assessment than the other.

Chapter nine details the empirical analysis conducted to consider the context specific requirements of using personality assessment tools in personnel selection. In particular it reviews the theoretical and empirical evidence on socially desirable responding and the bandwidth fidelity debate. The empirical study concludes that the factor structures of both the FFM and the HEXACO are maintained in the employment selection context, it

demonstrates that there are normative changes for both the FFM and the HEXACO when used in an employment selection context, and argues that positive impression management does little to decrease the criterion related validity of the HEXACO or the FFM for a CWB outcome. It does however, find that positive impression management contributes to the OCB outcome. In relation to the bandwidth fidelity debate the empirical analysis concludes that a composite of facet level assessments has greater predictive validity with each of the CWB and OCB criteria, however this increased predictive validity comes at the price of increased complexity and number of predictive dimensions.

Chapter ten provides an overview of the empirical evidence presented in this thesis. It

concludes that the domains of the HEXACO and the FFM both provide valid predictors of the employment suitability domains of CWB and OCB. It further concludes that both broad and narrow personality measures are comparable in the amount of variance they explain in both CWB and OCB. It notes that the predictive validity of CWB and its interpersonal and

organisational dimensions are likely to be improved with the addition of trait anger and self control measures to a broad personality measure. The chapter summarises the practical advice for applied psychologists including reinforcing the requirement to use local norms, and concludes that the use of personality assessment tools in personnel selection requires the balance of a number of considerations including predictive validity and ease of interpretation. This chapter details the limitations of the current study and discusses ways that these

limitations may be overcome in future research. It notes the limitation of the correlational design of the current study, the fact that the sample may not be wholly age and gender representative of the employment seeking population and the positive impression management measure used in the current study had poor internal consistency.

The appendices to the thesis include additional statistical analyses not reported in the results sections of the empirical chapters.

This thesis provides a significant contribution to the personnel selection literature by providing clear evidence of the comparable predictive validity of both the FFM and the HEXACO in an employment selection context aimed at determining an individual’s

propensity for CWB and OCB. It identifies the factors that increase the predictive validity of dispositional assessment of these employment domains but also indicates the potential

increased interpretative complication that may result from the increased validity. It provides practitioners with practical strategies to assist employers in the selection of candidates who are likely to provide a positive contribution to the workplace.