British Journal of Management, Vol.

10, 5–12 (1999)

Understanding Management
Performance
Ivan Robertson, Patrick Gibbons,* Helen Baron, Rab MacIver
and Gill Nyfield**
Manchester School of Management, UMIST, PO Box 88, Manchester M60 1QD,
*KPMG Management Consulting, 1 Puddle Dock, London EC4V 3PD and
**Saville & Holdsworth, 3 AC Court, High Street, Thames Ditton, Surrey KT7 0SR, UK

Current models of the factors underlying management performance make use of a

variety of variables at different levels of analysis. A framework is presented in which
variables of three different types are linked together. Using data from a sample (n = 437)
of British managers this article explores relationships between personality factors
(using the big-five factors), work competencies and managerial performance. Results
from the analyses reveal a set of underlying competency factors, which show different
patterns of correlation with two facets of performance: current proficiency and pro-
motability. In turn, these factors and the facets of performance show relationships with
the big-five personality factors. Current proficiency is more closely related to compet-
encies of organization, specialization and analysis – competencies more likely to be dis-
played by people who are conscientious and introverted. Promotability is linked more
closely to competencies concerning action/motivation, flexibility/sensitivity and com-
munication – competencies more likely to be displayed by people who are extroverted
with lower conscientiousness and agreeableness.

This paper attempts to provide some insight into since situational factors also have a clear role to
the individual attributes underlying managerial play in determining behaviour. Nevertheless, a
performance. Managerial performance, like all clear grasp of these personal attributes should
aspects of human behaviour, is a function of both provide some help in seeking to unravel the
the personal attributes of the actor and the situ- complex interplay of behavioural, situational and
ation in which he or she exists. Managers work in personal factors.
a wide variety of situations and it is clear that job The empirical focus for this paper is on the
demands, job role, colleagues, organization sys- personal, psychological attributes associated with
tems and other situational factors will exert an managerial behaviour. In the past decade or so
influence on the behaviour of any individual man- there has been considerable interest in the identi-
ager. It is also reasonable to expect, on the basis fication of the competencies associated with suc-
of everyday experience and research evidence, cessful managerial performance (Boam and
that the individual attributes of a manager will Sparrow, 1992; Boyatzis, 1982; Dulevwicz, 1989;
influence his or her behaviour. The theoretical Thornton and Byham, 1982). The competency
basis for this paper recognizes that behaviour is approach provides a useful framework for ex-
a result of the complex, reciprocating interplay amining managerial effectiveness but it has not
of situational, personal and behavioural factors yet been developed to the point where there is
(Bandura, 1982; Robertson, 1993). Even a com- agreement on the key competencies involved in
plete understanding of the specific personal factors managerial performance. In fact, definitions of
involved in determining managerial behaviour competencies are often poor and contradictory.
would provide an incomplete model for under- Although some authors have proposed sets of com-
standing and predicting managerial performance, petencies with broad applicability (e.g. Cockerill,

© 1999 British Academy of Management

6 I. Robertson, P. Gibbons, H. Baron, R. MacIver and G. Nyfield

Hunt and Schroder, 1995) there is no evidence to In this framework personality factors help to
support the existence of a single, universally ap- determine work competencies. Depending upon
plicable set of discrete and measurable compet- the job demands and the work situation, these
encies for managerial work. Although there is competencies then combine and interact to influ-
no universal model, there is general recognition ence overall performance. The demands of the
of various commonly occurring competency job determine the relative importance of each
labels – with some shared understanding of their competency to overall performance. The specific
meaning. competencies act as mediators between the under-
Psychologists have spent considerable effort lying personality variables and overall perform-
trying to develop models of more fundamental, ance. Barrick, Mount and Strauss (1993) for
individual difference characteristics, which have example, have shown how the setting of goals
universal validity. In combination with situational mediates the links between conscientiousness and
factors, these individual difference characteristics overall job performance. To provide further detail,
are likely to underpin specific competencies. These the big five personality factors and illustrative
characteristics may be conveniently divided into competencies, taken from those used later in this
two broad categories: cognitive ability and person- study, have been included in Figure 1.
ality factors. General mental ability ‘g’ has been Given the potential gain to be derived from
shown to be measurable, with a high degree of reli- identifying the relationships between managerial
ability. Personality, although initially resistant to a success and individual attributes, there is a clear
simple taxonomy, has recently been classified into need for studies exploring links between man-
a reasonably well-accepted group of five factors: agement performance, specific competencies and
neuroticism; extroversion; openness; conscient- underlying personality. Specific competencies
iousness and agreeableness (Digman, 1990). represent a way of specifying the attributes that
Some research has explored the links between may determine the effectiveness of a manager.
psychological characteristics and work perform- Obviously, to an extent, different competencies will
ance. For work performance in general, including be more or less important in different managerial
managerial work, there is a considerable body of roles and the links between specific competencies
evidence supporting relationships between effect- and job proficiency will vary from one managerial
iveness and general cognitive ability (Ree, Earles job to another, as Figure 1 suggests. Although such
and Teachout, 1994). Research has also focused variability is inevitable there may be generaliz-
on relationships between managerial performance able, consistent links between sub-components
and personality characteristics. Some work has of job success such as overall proficiency and
concentrated on links between personality and promotability and individual attributes (specific
overall job proficiency (Barrick and Mount, 1991; competencies and personality). For example, it
Tett, Jackson and Rothstein, 1991). Other work may be that certain personality characteristics are
has examined links between personality and spe- more closely linked with current proficiency than
cific competencies (Robertson and Kinder, 1993). they are with promotability. The study reported
The relatively small amount of work conducted so here was designed to explore relationships be-
far has not revealed any generalizable relation- tween: (i) indicators of managerial success (cur-
ships between specific personality characteristics rent proficiency and promotability); (ii) specific
and managerial performance, although some competencies and (iii) personality characteristics.
authors have found evidence that conscientious- No specific hypotheses are proposed, although
ness might be associated with successful perform- there is an expectation that competencies and
ance in a wide range of jobs (e.g. Barrick and personality variable will be related to current job
Mount, 1991). More recent work suggests that the proficiency and promotability in different ways.
relationship between conscientiousness and man-
agerial performance may not be straightforward
(Robertson et al., 1996). Robertson (1993) has pro- Method
posed a framework in which overall job perform-
Sample and procedure
ance is determined by a set of factors, including
specific competencies, personality factors and job Client organizations of a large test publisher were
demands (see Figure 1). approached to take part in a validation study of
Understanding Management Performance 7

Situational
factors
Personality constructs Work competences Overall job
performance
Big five: emotional stability, Analysis and judgement, Work
agreeableness, extroversion, Decision-making, proficiency
openness to experience, Interpersonal sensitivity,
conscientiousness Resilience,
Subfactors: impulsive, socially Energy and initiative, etc.
confident, group dependent,
conventional, detail conscious,
etc.

Genetic and Job

environmental demands
factors

Figure 1. Personality and job performance

the criterion-related validity of ability and per- of personality relevant in an occupational context
sonality measures for managerial performance. (e.g. controlling, conceptual, tough-minded). In-
The present results are based on 437 managers in ternal consistency reliabilities range from 0.68 to
the UK, from three financial services companies, 0.88. The 400 items are presented in blocks of four
a large manufacturing company and a distribution and respondents must choose the statement which
organization. The personnel department at each is most and least like themselves from each block.
organization designated managers to take part in The following is an example of items and their
the study and although the managers were not format: ‘I am the sort of person who: 1) recog-
coerced into participating, nearly all did. Some nises my own weaknesses; 2) takes a theoretical
of the sample had been selected for their current approach; 3) leads the team and 4) can brush off
position using ability tests and personality ques- insults.’ The forced-choice format, which is de-
tionnaires. The sample was 28% female and 13% signed to reduce social desirability responding,
of non-European ethnic origin. Ages ranged from results in ipsative scale scores, which have been
22 to 60 years with a mean of 37 years. A sub- the subject of some controversy. Hicks (1970) and
stantial minority (42%) were qualified to degree Johnson, Wood and Blinkhorn (1998) have argued,
level. Members of the sample came from a wide on theoretical grounds, that the interdepend-
range of functions and they described themselves ence between a set of ipsative scores makes
as mainly (74%) junior/middle managers. standard statistical techniques and psychometric
A personality measure (OPQ CM4.2; Saville and interpretation impossible. However, empirical and
Holdsworth, 1993a) was administered under stand- simulation studies (e.g. Bartram, 1996; Saville and
ardized conditions and the first-line supervisor of Willson, 1991; Tenopyr, 1988) have shown that
each manager completed an overall performance- for instruments with larger numbers of scales,
rating scale, a promotability-rating scale and the such as the concept model of the OPQ, the inter-
Inventory of Management Competencies (Saville dependence has a relatively minor effect on scale
and Holdsworth, 1993b) to provide measures for scores, compared to equivalent normative meas-
each subject, in a concurrent validation design. ures, provided average scale intercorrelations are
low. Research has also shown that internal con-
sistency reliability estimates will tend to be robust
Measures
but slightly depressed. In essence, these results
The Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ) suggest that for instruments with a large number
Concept Model 4.2. The CM4.2 version of the of scales, for studies with a sufficiently large
OPQ (Saville and Holdsworth Ltd, 1993a) has sample size, the two forms are equally acceptable
30 conceptually derived scales which cover aspects from a psychometric point of view. It is certainly
8 I. Robertson, P. Gibbons, H. Baron, R. MacIver and G. Nyfield

the case that similar validation results have been frequency of observed behaviour scale from
found with the normative and ipsative forms of ‘hardly ever’ to ‘nearly always’. The internal con-
the OPQ (e.g. Borkowski, 1989, 1995; Saville, Sik, sistency reliability coefficients range from 0.83
Nyfield, Hackston and MacIver, 1996; Wigfield to 0.91. Sample items for the strategic, analytical
and Janman, 1991). The forced choice, ipsative and motivated scales of IMC are: ‘Focuses on the
scale is frequently more popular with organiza- longer term. Understands organizational strategy.’
tions since it minimizes social desirability of (strategic); ‘Can identify the core of a problem.
responding and indicates more clearly the Draws accurate inferences from the information
variation in individual personality profiles. Given given.’ (analytical); ‘Determined to succeed. Seeks
the need to collect data from a number of responsibility.’ (motivated).
collaborating organizations, the ipsative version
of the OPQ was used in this study. Overall job performance. A six-item general
measure of overall job proficiency (OJP) was
Inventory of Management Competencies (IMC). developed for the purposes of this study. Items
The Inventory of Management Competencies were rated by supervisors on a five-point scale
(IMC) (Saville and Holdsworth, 1993b) is a 160- and raw scores on all items were summed to
item questionnaire designed to measure an provide a single score. The internal consistency
employee’s work performance against a set of reliability of this set of items was 0.86. Sample
16 generic management competencies, such as items: ‘This manager achieves the objectives
strategic, analytical and motivated. Table 1 gives a of the job. This manager performs well in the job
brief definition of each scale. The instrument is overall.’
designed to allow self, peer, subordinate and
supervisor ratings of performance. Overall promotability. A similar six-item meas-
Each of the 16 scales (see Table 1) is based on ten ure of the potential for future promotion was also
normative items which are rated on a one-to-five developed for the study. The internal consistency

Table 1. Inventory of Management Competencies (IMC)

Competency Definition

Commercial awareness Understands and applies commercial and financial principles. Views issues in terms of costs,
profits, markets and added value.
Specialist knowledge Understands technical or professional aspects of work and continually maintains technical
knowledge.
Problem solving and analysis Analyses issues and breaks them down into their component parts. Makes systematic and
rational judgements based on relevant information.
Creativity and innovation Creates new and imaginative approaches to work-related issues. Identifies fresh approaches
and shows a willingness to question traditional assumptions.
Strategic Demonstrates a broad-based view of issues, events and activities and a perception of their
longer-term impact or wider implications.
Planning and organizing Organizes and schedules events, activities and resources. Sets up and monitors timescales
and plans.
Action orientation Demonstrates a readiness to make decisions, take the initiative and originate action.
Oral communication Speaks clearly, fluently and in a compelling manner to both individuals and groups.
Written communication Writes in a clear and concise manner, using appropriate grammar, style and language for the
reader.
Interpersonal sensitivity Interacts with others in a sensitive and effective way. Respects and works well with others.
Persuasiveness Influences, convinces or impresses others in a way that results in acceptance, agreement or
behaviour change.
Leadership Motivates and empowers others in order to reach organizational goals.
Quality orientation Shows awareness of goals and standards. Follows through to ensure that quality and
productivity standards are met.
Flexibility Successfully adapts to changing demands and conditions.
Resilience Maintains effective work behaviour in the face of set-backs or pressure. Remains calm,
stable and in control of him or herself.
Personal motivation Commits self to work hard towards goals. Shows enthusiasm and career commitment.
Understanding Management Performance 9

reliability of these six items was 0.84. Sample items: The big-five scores, derived in this way, were
‘This manager meets the criteria for promotion. validated against the NEO-PI-R (Costa and
This manager seems likely to rise higher in the McCrae, 1992). The NEO-PI-R has been designed
organization.’ specifically as a measure of the big five and is
recognized as a construct-valid measure for each
big-five factor. A sample of 200 undergraduate
Derivation of big-five personality scores
and postgraduate students from varied disciplines
There were two stages in the derivation of big-five in UK universities completed the NEO-PI-R and
personality scores. the CM5.2 version of the OPQ. The correlation
In the first stage, a five-factor solution was between the big five scores derived from the
derived from a large sample of OPQ scores OPQ CM5.2 and NEO-PI-R scores, corrected for
(n = 2838) using the normative version (CM5.2) of unreliability, are given in Table 2.
the OPQ. This is a sister instrument to the CM4.2 To ensure that the CM4.2 questionnaire provides
which measures exactly the same set of 30 con- the same results a further sample of 179 Human
structs with 240 items, using a standard five-point Resource professionals from a wide variety of UK
rating scale. In addition to the factor analysis, organizations completed both the CM4.2 and
judgements were obtained from a number of CM5.2 questionnaires. Big-five scale scores were
experts on links between OPQ scales and the big- derived from both questionnaires. The correlation
five personality factors. There was strong agree- between the two sets of scores, corrected for
ment between the expert judgement and the factor unreliability, are given in Table 3.
analysis. OPQ scales for each big-five scale were The procedure described above ensured that
selected from the common elements and big-five the big-five scores derived from the CM4.2 ver-
scores for each factor were obtained by summing sion of the OPQ and used in this study were
the OPQ (CM5.2) scores for the relevant scales. valid.

Table 2. Correlations between CM5.2 big five and the NEO-PI-R big-five scores, corrected for unreliability
OPQ CM5.2
Neuroticism Extroversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness
(N) (E) (O) (A) (C)

Alpha 0.83 0.90 0.86 0.77 0.84

N 0.92 0.94 0.37 0.25 –0.05 0.29
E 0.89 0.28 0.83 0.17 –0.10 0.22
NEO O 0.87 –0.07 0.23 0.86 0.23 0.19
A 0.86 –0.15 –0.28 0.00 0.90 0.10
C 0.90 –0.03 0.20 0.27 0.19 0.99

Note: Validity diagonals are shown in bold and reliabilities (coefficient alpha) in italics.

Table 3. Correlations between CM5.2 big-five score and the CM4.2 big-five scores, corrected for unreliability
OPQ CM5.2
Neuroticism Extroversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness
(N) (E) (O) (A) (C)

Alpha 0.83 0.90 0.86 0.77 0.84

N 0.80 0.95 –0.06 0.06 0.25 –0.05
E 0.85 0.02 0.88 0.14 0.01 –0.20
OPQ O 0.82 0.14 –0.05 0.86 –0.12 –0.22
CM4.2 A 0.80 0.27 –0.09 –0.13 0.90 –0.18
C 0.84 0.03 –0.27 –0.31 0.03 0.83

Note: As Table 2 above.

10 I. Robertson, P. Gibbons, H. Baron, R. MacIver and G. Nyfield

Table 4. Factor analysis of competencies

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

Creativity and innovation 0.71

Personal motivation 0.70
Action orientation 0.70
Persuasiveness 0.64 0.51
Commercial awareness
Strategic flexibility 0.78
Interpersonal sensitivity 0.73
Resilience 0.71
Oral communication 0.79
Written communication 0.75
Quality orientation 0.85
Leadership 0.58
Planning and organizing 0.49
Problem solving and analysis 0.73
Specialist knowledge 0.72

Factor one: action, motivation and creativity

Factor two: flexibility, sensitivity and resilience
Factor three: communication
Factor four: organization and leadership
Factor five: specialization and analysis

Results The factors show different patterns of correla-

tion with current proficiency and promotability
The first step in the analysis involved examin-
(see Table 5). Factors four (organization and
ing the links between the management compe-
leadership) and five (specialization and analysis)
tencies measured in this study (using the IMC)
show higher correlations with proficiency (mean
and the assessments of overall proficiency and
correlation = 0.40) than with promotability (mean
promotability.
correlation = 0.25). Factors one (action moti-
Factor analysis (principal components, with
vation and creativity), two (flexibility, sensitivity
oblimin rotation) of the IMC competencies pro-
and resilience) and three (communication) show
duced five main factors. These factors, together
higher correlations with promotability (mean
with factor loadings above 0.50 are shown in
correlation = 0.51) than with proficiency (mean
Table 4.
correlation = 0.24).
Summary labels for the factors and an
Table 6 shows how the competency factors
indication of the IMC scales loading heavily on
correlate with the big five personality factors.
the factors are given below:
Competency factor one is linked to extroversion,
1 action, motivation and creativity (creativity low conscientiousness and low agreeableness.
and innovation, personal motivation, action Factor two is linked (weakly, r = 0.14) to agree-
orientation and persuasiveness); ableness. Factor three is linked to cognitive
2 flexibility, sensitivity and resilience (flexibility, ability and extroversion and (weakly, r = –0.14)
interpersonal sensitivity and resilience); to low conscientiousness. Factor four is linked
3 communication (oral communication, written to conscientiousness and (weakly, r = 0.13 and
communication and persuasiveness); 0.12 respectively) to neuroticism and low open-
4 organization and leadership (quality orienta- ness. Factor five is linked to low extroversion,
tion and leadership); cognitive ability and openness and (weakly,
5 specialization and analysis (problem solving r = 0.19 and –0.15) to conscientiousness and low
and analysis and specialist knowledge). agreeableness.
Understanding Management Performance 11

Table 5. Correlations of competency factors with overall performance and promotability

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

Overall performance 0.39 0.17 0.17 0.46 0.35

Overall promotability 0.56 0.21 0.27 0.33 0.16

All correlations are statistically significant (p , 0.001).

Table 6. Correlations of competency factors with personality and ability

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

Neuroticism –0.01 –0.05 0.02 0.13** 0.03

Extroversion 0.26 0.04 0.22 –0.03 –0.26
Openness 0.09* 0.04 0.09 –0.12* 0.20
Agreeableness –0.20 0.14** 0.04 0.03 –0.15
Conscientiousness –0.22 –0.05 –0.14** 0.22 0.19
Cognitive ability (numerical) –0.02 –0.03 0.22 –0.01 0.23
Cognitive ability (verbal) –0.01 0.00 0.28 –0.06 0.19

Correlations in bold are statistically significant (p , 0.001); those marked * (p , 0.05), ** (p , 0.01).

Discussion The clearest differences between current pro-

ficiency and promotability arise in relation to
The results from this study show interesting links extroversion and conscientiousness. Extroversion
between specific competency factors and in- is positively related to the promotability compet-
dicators of current proficiency and promotability encies but negatively correlated with competencies
for a sample of managers. The competency associated more strongly with current perform-
variables divide into a reasonably clear set of five ance. Conscientiousness shows a similar pattern
factors. (It must be remembered that the labels with generally positive correlations with the cur-
are subjective and may not capture the psycho- rent performance competencies.
logical meaning of the factors.) The competency The results presented here reveal that there is
factors underlying current proficiency and pro- a clear case for examining managerial success at
motability are clearly different. Current profi- the level of specific competencies as well as at the
ciency for this sample of managers is related most overall level. Personality factors are linked to
closely to competencies of organization, special- competency factors in a way that would not be
ization and analysis. In turn these competencies apparent if analysis was restricted to overall per-
are displayed by people who are conscientious, formance only. The relationships revealed in this
intelligent and introverted. The competencies paper between personality and competency factors
linked to promotability (action/motivation, flexi- are interpretable and provide a basis for further
bility/sensitivity and communication) are displayed analysis and theoretical development. It is possible
by managers who are extroverted, lower on con- that the competency, promotability and perform-
scientiousness and lower on agreeableness. Some ance ratings obtained in this study could be
psychological characteristics are linked to both associated with length of time in the job. In turn,
current performance and promotability. Cognitive tenure in the job could be linked with personality
ability is positively correlated with competencies factors. In this case the relationships between the
underlying both promotability and current pro- personality variables, competencies and pro-
ficiency; a result which is consistent with other motability found here could be confounded with
research linking cognitive ability with performance effects due to job tenure. Unfortunately data on
in most job families (Ree, Earles and Teachout, job tenure were not available. The results obtained
1994). Low agreeableness is also associated with need to be interpreted with this methodological
both sets of competencies. limitation in mind.
12 I. Robertson, P. Gibbons, H. Baron, R. MacIver and G. Nyfield

The findings also suggest implications for prac- Cockerill, T., J. Hunt and H. Shroder (1995). ‘Managerial
titioners who are concerned with training, develop- Competencies: Fact or Fiction?’, Business Strategy Review,
6(3), pp. 1–12.
ment and assessment of people in organizations. Costa, P. T. and R. R. McCrae (1992). Manual for the Revised
The most important implication concerns the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R). Psychological
clear distinction between the key competencies Assessment Resources, Inc., Odessa, FL.
for performance and those for promotability. Digman, J. M. (1990). ‘Personality Structure: Emergence of
Current proficiency is most closely linked with the Five-factor Model’, Annual Review of Psychology, 41,
pp. 417–440.
competencies which are focused on job perform- Dulevwicz, V. (1989). ‘Assessment Centres as the Route
ance (being organized and having the analytical to Competence’. Personnel Management, November,
ability and specialist knowledge required for the pp. 56–59.
job). By contrast promotability is more closely Hicks, L. E. (1970). ‘Some Properties of Ipsative, Normative
associated with characteristics that suggest the and Forced Choice Normative Measures’, Psychological
Bulletin, 74, pp. 167–184.
person will be seen as go-ahead and personable
Johnson, C. E., R. Wood and S. F. Blinkhorn (1988).
(active, motivated and creative, coupled with ‘Spuriouser and Spuriouser: the use of Ipsative Personality
interpersonal flexibility). The personality factors Tests’, Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psych-
which are, in turn, linked to promotability and ology, 61, pp. 153–162.
current proficiency indicate that personal qual- Ree, M. J., J. A. Earles and M. S. Teachout (1994). ‘Predicting
Job Performance: Not much more than g’, Journal of
ities leading to high promotability ratings may not
Applied Psychology, 79, pp. 518–524.
be the same as the qualities associated with doing Robertson, I. T. (1993). ‘Personality and Personnel Selection’.
the current job well. Put crudely, an extrovert who In: C. L. Cooper and D. M. Rousseau (eds), Trends in
is not particularly conscientious but makes a good Organisational Behaviour, 1. John Wiley & Sons,
impression on people is more likely to be seen as Chichester.
Robertson, I. T. and A. Kinder (1993). ‘Personality and Job
highly promotable than an analytical, conscien-
Competencies: The Criterion-related Validity of Some Per-
tious manager who has good specialist knowledge. sonality Variables’, Journal of Occupational and Organisa-
Promotion practices which lead to the ascendancy tional Psychology, 66, pp. 225–244.
of interpersonally skilled extroverts over con- Robertson, I. T., H. Baron, P. Gibbons, R. MacIver and
scientious experts may be dysfunctional in many G. Nyfield (in press). ‘Conscientiousness and Job Success
organizations. for Managers’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology (under review).
Saville and Holdsworth Ltd (1993a). OPQ Concept Model
Manual and Users’ Guide. Saville and Holdsworth Ltd,
References Thames Ditton, UK.
Saville and Holdsworth Ltd (1993b). Inventory of Man-
Bandura, A. (1982). ‘Self-efficacy Mechanism in Human agement Competencies Manual and Users’ Guide. Saville
Agency’, American Psychologist, 37, pp. 122–147. and Holdsworth Ltd, Thames Ditton, UK.
Barrick, M. R. and M. K. Mount (1991). ‘The Big Five Saville, P. and E. Wilson (1991). ‘The Reliability and Validity
Personality Dimensions and Job Performance: A Meta- of Normative and Ipsative Approaches in the Measurement
analysis’, Personnel Psychology, 44, pp. 1–26. of Personality’, Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64,
Barrick, M. R., M. K. Mount and J. P. Strauss (1993). ‘Con- pp. 219–238.
scientiousness and Performance of Sales Representatives: Saville, P., G. Sik, G. Nyfield, J. Hackston and R. MacIver
Test of the Mediating Effects of Goal Setting’, Journal of (1996). ‘A Demonstration of the Validity of the Occu-
Applied Psychology, 78, pp. 715–722. pational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ) in the Measure-
Bartram, D. (1996). ‘The Relationship between Ipsatized and ment of Job Competencies Across Time and in Separate
Normative Measures of Personality’, Journal of Occupa- Organisations’, Applied Psychology: An International Review,
tional and Organisational Psychology, 69, pp. 25–39. 45, pp. 243–262.
Boam, R. and P. Sparrow (1992). ‘The Rise and Rationale of Tenopyr, M. L. (1988). ‘Artifactual Reliability of Forced-choice
Competency-based Approaches’. In: R. Boam and P. Sparrow Scales’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, pp. 749–751.
(eds), Designing and Achieving Competency. McGraw-Hill, Tett, R. P., D. N. Jackson and M. Rothstein (1991). ‘Personality
London. Measures as Predictors of Job Performance: A Meta-
Borkowski, T. (1989). Validation Review. Saville and Holds- analytic review’, Personnel Psychology, 44, pp. 703–742.
worth Ltd, Thames Ditton, UK. Thornton, G. C. and W. C. Byham, (1982). Assessment Centres
Borkowski, T. (1995). Validation Review 2. Saville and and Managerial Performance. Academic Press, London.
Holdsworth Ltd, Thames Ditton, UK. Wigfield, D. and K. Janman (1991). ‘Seeing Ourselves as
Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The Competent Manager: A Model for Others See Us’, Guidance and Assessment Review, 7(5),
Effective Performance. Wiley, New York. pp. 3–5.