You are on page 1of 13

Journal of Vocational Behavior 78 (2011) 136–148

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behavior


j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / j v b

Socioanalytic theory and work behavior: Roles of work values and political
skill in job performance and promotability assessment
Gerhard Blickle a,⁎, Julia K. Fröhlich a, Sandra Ehlert a, Katharina Pirner a, Erik Dietl a,
T. Johnston Hanes b, Gerald R. Ferris c
a
University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
b
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL, United States
c
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Socioanalytic theory postulates that job performance ratings are predicted by basic social
Received 3 April 2010 motives moderated by social competency. The two motives are the motive to get along with
Available online 8 June 2010 others and the motive to achieve status and power. The present two-study investigation
assessed these motives as work values and collected supervisors' job performance and
Keywords: promotability assessments. Social competency was assessed as political skill at work. The
Socioanalytic Theory results provided strong and consistent support for the hypotheses, thus providing a more direct
Work values test of socioanalytic theory and extending it to demonstrate effects beyond overall job
Political skill
performance ratings on contextual performance and promotability assessments. Contributions
Job performance
and implications of these results, strengths and limitations, directions for future research, and
Promotability
practical implications are discussed.
© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Socioanalytic theory (Hogan, 1983, 1991, 1996; Hogan & Shelton, 1998) is intended to explain the impact of employees'
personality traits on supervisors' job performance ratings as moderated by employees' social competency. Originally, socioanalytic
theory was important because it offered an explanation for why meta-analytic findings on the relationship between self-ratings of
personality traits and job performance ratings reported by supervisors (Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001), although mixed, and
seemingly inconsistent, still represent a consistent pattern of relationships (Hogan, & Holland, 2003).
According to socioanalytic theory, there are two basic motives underlying personality traits (Hogan, 1991). One is the motive to
get along and to cooperate with others in a friendly and positive way. The other is the motive to get ahead and achieve status and
power (Hogan & Shelton, 1998). The strengths of these motives differ from person to person. The proposition is that while the
motive to get along is expressed in the personality traits of emotional stability, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, the motive to
get ahead is expressed in the traits of extraversion and openness to experience (Hogan & Holland, 2003).
Previous research has partially supported the socioanalytic predictions on job performance. In three studies, Witt and Ferris (2003)
demonstrated that the interaction of conscientiousness and social competency predicted ratings of contextual and sales performance.
Blickle et al. (2008) found that the agreeableness× social competency interaction predicted job performance ratings by supervisors,
peers, and subordinates. Additionally, Blickle, Wendel, and Ferris (2010) reported a significant extraversion× social competency
interaction in the prediction of performance in automobile sales.
However, there also have been findings disconfirming socioanalytic predictions. Blickle et al. (2008) found that the
conscientiousness × social competency interaction did not predict job performance ratings by supervisors, peers, and subordinates.
In addition, Blickle et al. (2010) did not find a significant openness to experience× social competency interaction in the prediction of

⁎ Corresponding author. Arbeits-, Organisations- und Wirtschaftspsychologie, Institut fuer Psychologie, Universitaet Bonn, Kaiser-Karl-Ring 9, 53111 Bonn,
Germany. Fax: +49 228 734670.
E-mail address: gerhard.blickle@uni-bonn.de (G. Blickle).

0001-8791/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.05.010
G. Blickle et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 78 (2011) 136–148 137

automobile sales performance. We suggest that one reason for the failure to consistently support the socioanalytic predictions on job
performance is the use of personality traits to measure and represent the motives to get ahead and get along.
These personality traits are general tendencies, abstract potentialities, and general dispositions (Jang, McCrae, Angleitner,
Riemann, & Livesley, 1998; McCrae & Costa, 1996), which, however, lack the characteristic adaptations of the individual to specific
contexts or environments. Thus, research in this area needs to identify and utilize context-specific measurements of the motives to
get ahead and get along in order to provide a specific test of the socioanalytic theory of work behavior. Both personality and work
values are presumed by Hogan and his colleagues (e.g., Hogan & Holland, 2003; Hogan & Shelton, 1998) to be distal influences on
performance and in need of proximal qualities to transform and direct those distal qualities into action or influence. Political skill is
argued to be such a proximal construct that can influence the predictive effectiveness of work values on job performance and other
work outcomes.
Therefore, the purpose of the present research is to improve the prediction of job performance ratings on the basis of motives
(i.e., to get ahead and get along) and social competency by choosing work values as direct measures of the motives to get along and
get ahead at the workplace instead of using general personality traits. The present two-study investigation contributes to the body
of existing literature in several ways. First, we propose a new way to operationalize the motives to get ahead and get along in the
work context, which is more proximal to workplace behavior. Second, we expand upon socioanalytic theory by examining
outcome variables beyond job performance (i.e., we include job performance as a key outcome in Study 1 and assessments of
cooperation and promotability in Study 2). Third, we seek to further support the importance of political skill as a proximal set of
social competencies that can direct individuals' work values in their interaction effects on important work outcomes.

Theoretical foundations and hypothesis development

Socioanalytic theory of work behavior

Hogan and Shelton (1998) argued that people are motivated to get along and get ahead. Individuals need to cooperate and
comply with others in a positive ways in order to get along (Hogan & Holland, 2003). Alternatively, in order to get ahead, individuals
are competitive, seek responsibility, and attempt to maximize their visibility and be recognized (Hogan & Holland, 2003). Although
people are motivated to get along with and ahead, there are individual differences in the desire, ability, and ultimate success of
individuals to engage in these objectives. In empirical research, personality has been used as a proxy for motivation by researchers
(e.g., Witt & Ferris, 2003).
Hogan and Shelton (1998) contended that social competency is a moderator of the relationships between the motives to get
ahead and get along and the performance evaluations provided by supervisors. Through social competency, one is able to
transform intentions to get along and get ahead into actions that are perceived and evaluated by supervisors positively. By
implication, strong motive prediction of job performance should not be expected without the presence of social competency.

Social competency and political skill


We suggest that it is feasible to select a measurement of social competency that is designed specifically for the use in work and
organizational environments. Thus, we recommend using a social competency construct that is specific to the work environment
and one that has been well validated in research to date, with sound psychometric properties. Specifically, we use political skill in
this investigation as the measure of social competency.
Politically skilled persons possess social competencies that enhance their personal and/or organizational goals through their
understanding and influence of others in social interactions at work. The social astuteness of politically skilled individuals provides
them with a keen awareness of both self and others, which gives them the capacity to calibrate and adjust their behavior to
different and changing contexts. This astuteness and contextual adaptability allow politically skilled individuals to wield a great
deal of interpersonal influence because their influence attempts are not perceived as such (e.g., Ferris et al., 2007; Treadway, Ferris,
Duke, Adams, & Thatcher, 2007). Instead, politically skilled individuals appear to possess high levels of genuineness and integrity,
which help them to gain the trust and confidence of those with whom they interact. This set of mutually reinforcing competencies
allows politically skilled individuals to develop large and diverse networks of contacts they can leverage for additional influence.
Additionally, political skill has been found to serve as a moderator of specific relationships, acting as an antidote to the strain
reactions from stressors (e.g., Perrewé et al., 2004) and facilitating the effectiveness of influence tactics on performance outcomes
(e.g., Treadway et al., 2007). Furthermore, political skill has been found to increase the effectiveness of personality as a predictor of
job performance (Blickle et al., 2008, 2010; Witt & Ferris, 2003).

Work motive interactions with social competency on job performance and effectiveness

Need for direct measurement of work values as motives


In line with the “work values as preferences” paradigm (Berings, De Fruyt, & Bouwen, 2004; Lofquist & Dawis, 1971; Macnab &
Fitzsimmons, 1987; Pryor, 1982; Super, 1970, 1973), we consider work values as tendencies to prefer job characteristics, outcomes,
or features of the work environment and as personal characteristics that explain individual differences in organizational or
vocational behavior (Berings et al., 2004; Super, 1973). Work values are personal characteristics that explain individual differences
in behavior at the workplace.
138 G. Blickle et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 78 (2011) 136–148

Although work values are related to basic personality traits, they exhibit unique variance beyond personality traits. Personality
traits are described at the level of basic tendencies, considered as core qualities of the person with substantial heritability, whereas
work values are conceptualized at the level of characteristic adaptations and are assumed to be more malleable and to develop
through interactions with the specific work context (Berings et al., 2004; McCrae & Costa, 1996). Examples of work values as
preferences are “aesthetic” (i.e., work that allows individuals to make attractive things) or “economic return” (i.e., work that is
well compensated) (Cook, Hepworth, Wall, & Warr, 1981).
Previous research has established the construct and criterion-related validity of preferential work values. Berings et al. (2004)
tested the two-level model on the relationship between personality traits and work values by McCrae and Costa (1996). In line
with this model, they found that the majority of work values were related moderately to personality traits. In addition, work values
demonstrated incremental validity beyond personality traits to predict vocational interests. Judge and Bretz (1992) found that
individual work values influenced individuals' job choice decisions. Blickle (2000) found that specific work values predicted the
use of specific intraorganizational influence tactics, such as rational persuasion, ingratiation, pressure, and upward appeals. Thus,
empirical research has demonstrated that work values predict individual differences in organizational and vocational behavior.

Getting along motive


Hogan and Shelton (1998) defined the motive to get along as the need to feel accepted, liked, and supported by the members of
a group. Super (1970) has defined four work values that represent these motives at the work place. The motive to get ahead and
achieve status and power is represented by the work values of “management” (i.e., work involving the directing of others) and
“prestige” (i.e., work that inspires respect in the eyes of others) (Cook et al., 1981).
The motive to get along is represented by the work values of “associates” (i.e., work connecting individuals with co-workers the
like) and “supervisory relations” (i.e., work involving fair and congenial supervisors) (Cook et al., 1981). Seifert and Bergmann
(1983) demonstrated in a validation study that the work values “management” and “prestige” loaded on a common factor and that
the work values “associates” and “supervisory relations” loaded commonly on another orthogonal factor.
Individuals with strong motives to get along tend to act in ways that are socially affable and compatible because they desire to be
liked. Socially competent individuals will be able to present themselves in socially appropriate ways for the situation, thus leveraging
their affiliation and getting along motive into favorable perceptions. However, the more they lack social competency, the more they
tend to behave in socially inappropriate and awkward ways and negatively deviate from behavioral norms, thus reflecting an
unfavorable image and receiving low performance ratings in the workplace. Therefore, the following hypotheses are formulated:

Hypothesis 1a. There is a significant positive interaction of the work value of getting along and political skill on supervisors'
assessments of job performance. Specifically, for employees high on political skill, higher levels of getting along are associated with
higher levels of job performance ratings. For employees low on political skill, higher levels of getting along are associated with
lower levels of job performance ratings.

Hypothesis 1b. There is a significant positive interaction of the work value of getting along and political skill on assessments of
cooperation. Specifically, for employees high on political skill, higher levels of getting along are associated with higher levels of
cooperation. For employees low on political skill, higher levels of getting along are associated with lower levels of cooperation.

Getting ahead motive


Hogan (1983, 1991, 1996) defined the motive to get ahead as the endeavor to achieve power and status in groups. Thus, the
general motive to get ahead is embodied in the work context in the work values of management and prestige, and the general
motive to get along is represented in the work environment by the work values of associates and supervisory relations.
Individuals with strong motives to get ahead tend to act in ways that are socially visible because they desire to be perceived as
important to the group and influential and powerful. They follow an inner desire to convey to others around them a message concerning
who individuals think they are (Baumeister, 1982). However, those low in social competency are not capable of conveying the proper
public and situationally appropriate image, and as a result, they tend to reflect awkwardness and general negative impressions that
result in receiving low assessments of performance and effectiveness. Therefore, the following hypotheses are formulated:

Hypothesis 2a. There is a significant positive interaction of the work value of getting ahead and political skill on supervisors'
assessments of job performance. Specifically, for employees high on political skill, higher levels of getting ahead are associated with
higher levels of job performance ratings. For employees low on political skill, higher levels of getting ahead are associated with
lower levels of job performance ratings.

Hypothesis 2b. There is a significant positive interaction of the work value of getting ahead and political skill on supervisors'
assessments of employees' promotability. Specifically, for employees high on political skill, higher levels of getting ahead are
associated with higher levels of promotability ratings. For employees low on political skill, higher levels of getting ahead are associated
with lower levels of promotability ratings.

Plan of the research

In Study 1, supervisors from different organizations assessed employees' overall job performance. Employees reported the
strength of their work values of getting along and getting ahead and self-assessed political skill. Study 1 served to test Hypotheses
G. Blickle et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 78 (2011) 136–148 139

1a and 2a. In Study 2, employees from one organization and one kind of job reported the strength of their work values of getting
along and getting ahead and also self-assessed political skill. Criterion measures were performance assessments (i.e., cooperation
and promotability). Study 2 served to test Hypotheses 1b and 2b. Multi-study packages can advance theory and method in a
number of ways and thus meaningfully contribute to our understanding of organizational science phenomena (Ferris et al., 2006).
In the present investigation, we used two studies to test different hypotheses regarding the interactive relationships of work
values × political skill on job performance, cooperation, and promotability assessments.

Study 1: Method

Sample and procedure

The study was conducted in Germany. We sent e-mails to 806 employees from different companies who had been contacted
face to face or by telephone in advance. The employees were asked to use a specific link to visit our Web site and were provided
with a randomly generated individual code. After completing the self-report survey on the Web site, the employees were asked to
send the link and the password to their supervisors and ask them to provide a job performance rating of them. By the use of the
randomly generated codes, we were able to link employees' self-reports with supervisors' job performance ratings. Employees and
supervisors were promised to receive feedback on the research results and were provided with the feedback at the end of the
study. No other incentives were used.
Of the employees contacted by e-mail, 307 provided self-reports. Of these, 189 provided complete data and supervisors also
provided job performance ratings. Thus, the return rate of the dyads was 23%. Of the employees, 91 were female and 98 male. Their
age ranged between 21 and 63 years (M = 37.10 years, SD = 10.36 years). Most of the participants had at least college level
education and were white-collar employees. The mean job tenure was 7.60 years.

Measures

Work values of getting along and ahead


The Work Value Inventory (Super, 1970) has been translated to German, adapted, and validated by Seifert and Bergmann
(1983). From this inventory, we drew the scales Management and Prestige to measure the work value of getting ahead and the
scales Associates and Supervisory Relations to measure the work value of getting along. Responses were obtained on a five-point
response continuum running from 5 = very important to 1 = unimportant.
The Management items were as follows: At work, it is very important/unimportant to me “to stand above others, working in a
high position,” “guiding and leading other people,” and “tell other people what they have to do.” The Prestige items were as
follows: At work, it is very important/unimportant to me “gaining reputation in my job,” “attaining a respected position,” and
“working in a job that provides high prestige in society.” The six items were averaged to provide a scale score of the work value of
getting ahead. The Cronbach alpha reliability estimate of this 6-item scale was .84.
The Associates items were as follows: At work, it is very important/unimportant to me “to have peers with whom it is easy to
get along,” “to have good contacts with colleagues,” and “to build friendship with peers.” Supervisory Relations items were as
follows: At work, it is very important/unimportant to me “to have a sympathetic and thoughtful supervisor,“ “to have a supervisor
whom one can approach personally,” and “to have supervisor who acts justly.” The six items were averaged to provide a scale score
of the work value of getting along. The Cronbach alpha reliability for this 6-item scale was .85.

Political skill
The German version (Blickle et al., 2008) of the Political Skill Inventory (PSI) was used to assess self-reported political skill
(Ferris et al., 2005). The PSI is comprised of 18 items, and uses a 7-point Likert-type scale that ranges between 1 = low and
7 = high. Sample items include “I spend a lot of time and effort at work networking with others,” “I am able to make most people
feel comfortable and at ease around me,” “I am particularly good at sensing the motivations and hidden agendas of others,” and “I
try to show a genuine interest in other people.” The Cronbach alpha reliability for this scale was .93.

Job performance ratings by supervisors


Job performance ratings were assessed with an overall job performance measure developed and validated by Blickle et al. (2008,
2009). The scale is comprised of the following items: “(1) How fast does this person usually complete her tasks? (2) How is the
quality of this person's performance altogether? (3) How successful is this person in dealing with unforeseen and/or unexpected
events (disturbances, interruptions, losses/deficiencies, crises, stagnations) in her job activity generally? (4) How well does this
person adjust herself to changes and innovations? (5) How sociable does this person act in cooperation with others? (6) How
reliably does this person meet work-related commitments and agreements?” The scale was designed to sample performance
ratings from varying jobs. Therefore, the performance ratings are done in reference to persons in comparable positions. The rating
anchors ranged from 5 = “a great deal better than other persons in a comparable position” to 1 = “much worse than other persons
in a comparable position,” with 4 = “better than,” 3 = “as good as,” 2 = and “worse than” as intermediate anchors. The Cronbach
alpha reliability for this 6-item scale was .81.
140 G. Blickle et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 78 (2011) 136–148

Control variables

Previous research has shown gender (i.e., Bowen, Swim, & Jacobs, 2000) and age (i.e., Waldmann & Avolio, 1986) to demonstrate
an impact on performance ratings. Therefore, gender and age served as control variables in the data analyses. As a proxy for
intelligence, we controlled for educational level, which employed eight levels similar to the Educational Scale of Hollingshead's
index of social position (ISP, Miller & Salkind, 2002). The lowest level was left school without graduation (1); the highest level was
doctoral degree, MD, PhD, LLD, and the like (8).
Because we assumed that work values are adaptations of individuals to their work environments, we asked participants to
report their social position, and years of tenure in their present job. To assess social position, we used a scale (Isserstedt,
Middendorff, Fabian, Schnitzer, & Wolter, 2007) that is similar to Hollingshead's index of social position (Miller & Salkind, 2002).
The lowest level was unskilled worker (1); the highest level was manager of a large company (14). Because we assumed that work
values are personal characteristics that explain individual differences in behavior at the workplace beyond the Big Five, we also
controlled for these personality characteristics. The personality characteristics were measured with the 60 items of the German
version of the NEO-FFI (Borkenau & Ostendorf, 1993). In the present research, Cronbach alphas of these scales varied between
.71 ≤ α ≤ .85, placing them all in the acceptable range.

Data analyses

Hierarchical moderated multiple regression analyses (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003) were conducted to examine the
moderating role of political skill on work value of getting along – job performance and work value of getting ahead – job
performance relationships. The political skill scale and the work values scales were standardized. A significant change in R2 in the
last step identifies an interaction effect. We analyzed the data in the following way. First, we included the control variables,
namely, gender, age, education, position, and tenure. In the second step, we entered the Big Five personality characteristics. In the
third step, political skill and the work value of getting along and getting ahead were entered, and in the last step, the cross-product
terms of the work value of getting along or getting ahead and political skill were entered. If the interaction of work values and
political skill demonstrated an effect on job performance by supervisors' ratings, then the analysis should reveal it.

Study 1: Results

Table 1 reports the means, standard deviations, correlations, and coefficient alpha (α) internal consistency reliability estimates
of all variables. As postulated by socioanalytic theory, the motives of getting along and getting ahead were not correlated (r = .12,
p N .10). Getting ahead and getting along also were not correlated with job performance ratings, as would be predicted by
socioanalytic theory (e.g., Hogan & Shelton, 1998). Political skill was positively correlated with job performance ratings by
supervisors (r = .21, p b .01) as well as with the motives of getting along (r = .32, p b .01) and getting ahead (r = .31, p b .01).
We compared the mean scores by t-tests of the employees who filled out the measures but did not obtain supervisor ratings
versus those who did obtain supervisor ratings. In addition, we compared the respective gender distribution by a χ2-test. In no
case was a significant difference found (all p-values N.20). These findings support the representativeness of the sample of the 189
employees for whom data from supervisors were available.
Hypothesis 1a proposed a significant positive interaction of getting along × political skill on supervisors' assessments of job
performance. Specifically, for employees high on political skill, higher levels of getting along were hypothesized to be associated

Table 1
Means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities in the diagonal (Study 1).

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1. Gender .52 .50 —


2. Age 37.31 10.36 .16 ⁎ —
3. Education 5.36 1.53 .03 −.08 —
4. Position 6.85 2.11 .15 ⁎ .24 ⁎⁎ .31 ⁎⁎ —
5. Tenure 7.60 7.64 .09 .65 ⁎⁎ −.12 .09 —
6. Neuroticism 1.39 .60 −.24 ⁎⁎ −.16 ⁎ .06 −.17 ⁎ −.11 (.85)
7. Extraversion 2.60 .46 −.17 ⁎ −.15 ⁎ .03 .08 −.21 ⁎⁎ −.31 ⁎⁎ (.74)
8. Openness 2.42 .54 −.17 ⁎ .00 .27 ⁎⁎ .06 −.08 −.02 .24 ⁎⁎ (.76)
9. Agreeableness 2.73 .43 −.25 ⁎⁎ .08 −.03 −.04 .01 −.10 .23 ⁎⁎ .02 (.71)
10. Conscientiousness 2.93 .50 −.01 −.08 −.08 .06 −.03 −.34 ⁎⁎ .21 ⁎⁎ −.09 .11 (.83)
11. Political skill 5.36 .84 .02 .01 .05 .25 ⁎⁎ −.08 −.21 ⁎⁎ .51 ⁎⁎ .22 ⁎⁎ .18 ⁎ .28 ⁎⁎ (.93)
12. Getting along 4.20 .56 −.15 ⁎ −.08 .01 −.10 −.07 .21 ⁎⁎ .21 ⁎⁎ .01 .23 ⁎⁎ .16 ⁎ .32 ⁎⁎ (.85)
13. Getting ahead 3.09 .67 .18 ⁎ −.08 .10 .15 ⁎ −.08 −.07 .21 ⁎⁎ −.03 −.21 ⁎⁎ .25 ⁎⁎ .31 ⁎⁎ .12 (.84)
14. Job Performance 3.78 .56 −.08 .01 .04 .01 −.03 −.10 .21 ⁎⁎ .03 .07 .05 .21 ⁎⁎ .02 .00 (.81)

Note. N = 189. Gender: 0 = female, 1 = male; performance rated by supervisor.


⁎ p b .05.
⁎⁎ p b .01.
G. Blickle et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 78 (2011) 136–148 141

with higher levels of job performance ratings. For employees low on political skill, higher levels of getting along were hypothesized
to be associated with lower levels of job performance ratings.
Table 2 presents the hierarchical moderated regression results for the getting along × political skill interaction. After all control
and predictor variables were entered in the first three steps, the getting along × political skill interaction term explained a
significant proportion of additional variance in job performance ratings (Block 4a: β = .30, p b .01, ΔR2 = .06).
The form of the getting along × political skill interaction is illustrated according to the procedure proposed by Cohen et al. (2003) in
Fig. 1. Three levels of political skill were plotted: at one standard deviation below the mean, at the mean, and at one standard deviation
above the mean. As hypothesized, for individuals high on political skill, higher levels of the work value of getting along were associated
with higher levels of job performance ratings. For individuals low on political skill, higher levels of getting along were associated with
lower levels of job performance ratings by supervisors. As can be seen from Fig. 1, employees high on getting along but low on political
skill received job performance ratings that were .85 SD less than employees high on getting along and also high on political skill.
Hypothesis 2a proposed a significant positive interaction of getting ahead × political skill on supervisors' assessments of job
performance. Table 2 presents the hierarchical moderated regression results for the getting ahead × political skill interaction. The
getting ahead × political skill interaction term explained a significant proportion of additional variance in job performance ratings
(Block 4b: β = .27, p b .01, ΔR2 = .05). As can be seen in Fig. 2, employees high on getting ahead but low on political skill received
job performance ratings that were .77 SD less than employees high on getting along and also high on political skill.

Study 2: Method

Sample and procedure

Study 2 was conducted in the sales department of a company of the German finance industry that comprised 368 in-house
salespersons. These in-house salespersons were asked to participate in the study by their supervisors and were handed out the
questionnaire with a return envelop. Supervisors made clear that the study was completely voluntary and that it was a chance for
the salespersons to receive feedback on their individual social competencies but that the company would get no information on
individual results (i.e., only aggregated findings across individuals).
When the in-house salespersons completed the questionnaire, they sent it by mail directly to the university. This procedure was
chosen because it demonstrated to the participants that their supervisors neither could monitor whether they participated in the
study nor see their responses. Once a year, salespersons received written performance appraisals from their supervisors, which also
include supervisory assessments of salespersons' cooperation and promotability. When working on the questionnaire, salespersons
were asked to draw on their recent job performance assessment form to complete the self-reported measures of performance.
Of the 368 salespersons contacted, 90 participated in Study 2 and provided complete data, reflecting a return rate of 25%. Of
the employees, 34 were female and 56 male. Their age ranged between 21 and 60 years (M = 38.99 years, SD = 10.56 years). On

Table 2
Hierarchical regression analyses of job performance ratings by supervisors on work value of getting along, ahead, political skill, and controls (Study 1).

Criterion = job performance ratings by supervisors

Predictors Β ΔR2 R2

Block

1 Gender −.08
Age .06
Education .04
Position .00
Tenure −.06
.01 .01
2 Neuroticism −.07
Extraversion .19 ⁎
Openness −.05
Agreeableness −.01
Conscientiousness .00
.04 .05
3 Motive to get along −.07
Motive to get ahead −.07
Political skill .22 ⁎
.03 .08
4a Getting along × Political skill .30 ⁎⁎
.06 ⁎⁎ .14 ⁎⁎
4b Getting ahead × Political skill .27 ⁎⁎
.05 ⁎⁎ .13 ⁎⁎

Note. N = 189; Gender: 0 = female, 1 = male.


⁎ p b .05.
⁎⁎ p b .01.
142 G. Blickle et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 78 (2011) 136–148

Fig. 1. Interaction of political skill and work value of getting along on supervisoryjob performance ratings (Study 1).

average, they had worked for 5.7 years in the present company (SD = 5.51 years). We compared our sample of 90 with the 368
salespersons in the whole company on the distribution of gender and hierarchical position which were made available to us. Other
features of the 368 salespersons were not made available to us by the company. Our final sample did not differ significantly from
the whole group of salespersons in the company (p (χ2) N . 10).

Measures

Work values and political skill


For the work values of getting along and ahead and political skill, the same items and scales as in Study 1 were used. The
Cronbach alpha reliability of the getting along scale was α = .77, the alpha reliability of the getting ahead scale was α = .82, and the
alpha reliability of the Political Skill Inventory was α = .90.

Fig. 2. Interaction of political skill and work value of getting ahead on supervisoryjob performance ratings (Study 1).
G. Blickle et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 78 (2011) 136–148 143

Contextual job performance and promotability assessments


Employees provided self-reports of their cooperation assessments and promotability prospects, which were drawn from the
annual performance appraisals provided to them by their supervisors. The form reporting supervisors' assessments of cooperation
and promotability had the following wording: “Cooperation—the employee outperformed the behavioral expectations in his job;
the employee attained without any limitations the behavioral expectations in his job; the employee attained in general the
behavioral expectations in his job; the employee did not meet in several aspects partly being highly relevant to his/her job and the
behavioral expectations in his/her job.” We coded the best alternative rating with 4 and the lowest rating alternative with 1.
“Employee's promotability—the employee is immediately able to pass to the next hierarchical level or expert position; the
employee can be considered for higher jobs; the employee will be developed for higher jobs; the employee needs more training in
his present job.” We coded the best rating alternative with 4 and the lowest rating alternative with 1.
In order to promote accurate reporting about the supervisor ratings for cooperation and promotability, we not only asked the
participants to report the supervisors' performance evaluations, but also we asked the participants to provide a self-assessment on
exactly the same items to provide the participants with a stage for self-presentation. Based on Tyler and Lind (1992), the idea
behind this was that if participants had this stage for self-presentation, they would see no necessity to fake the reports on the
supervisors' evaluations because they had their personal view considered. This consideration of personal views makes persons
accept opposing decisions by supervisors.

Control variables
We controlled for gender, age, educational level as proxy for intelligence, hierarchical position (1 = lowest, 7 = highest level),
job tenure (in months), and the Big Five personality traits (Borkenau & Ostendorf, 1993).

Data analyses

As employed in Study 1, hierarchical moderated multiple regression analyses (Cohen et al., 2003) were conducted, in this case
to examine the moderating role of political skill on the relationships between work values and measures of cooperation and
promotability (Hypotheses 1b and 2b).

Study 2: Results

Table 3 reports the means, standard deviations, correlations, and coefficient alpha (α) reliability estimates of the variables. As
in Study 1, and as proposed by socioanalytic theory, the motives of getting along and getting ahead were not correlated (r = .11,
p N .25), nor were they correlated with job performance ratings. In addition, as found in Study 1, political skill was positively
correlated with both the motives of getting along (r = .33, p b .05) and getting ahead (r = .26, p b .05).
Hypothesis 1b postulated a significant positive interaction of the work value of getting along and political skill on supervisors'
assessments of employees' cooperation contextual job performance. Table 4 (left hand side) presents the hierarchical moderated
regression results. The getting along × political skill interaction term explained a significant proportion of additional variance in
cooperation (β = .22, p b .05, ΔR2 = .04). For individuals high on political skill (+1 SD), higher levels of getting along were
associated with higher levels of cooperation. As can be seen in Fig. 3, employees high on the work value of getting along but low on
political skill received cooperation ratings that were .68 SD less than employees high on getting along and also high on political
skill. These results provide support for Hypothesis 1b.

Table 3
Means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities in the diagonal (Study 2).

M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

01. Gender 0.62 0.49 —


02. Age 38.99 10.56 .10 —
03. Position 1.69 0.83 .34 ⁎ .34 ⁎ —
04. Tenure 71.11 68.90 .26 ⁎ .60 ⁎ −.05 —
05. Education 2.89 0.97 .17 .11 .35 ⁎ −.08 —
06. Neuroticism 1.23 0.57 −.20 −.10 −.24 ⁎ −.03 −.15 (.84)
07. Extraversion 2.54 0.42 −.18 −.21 ⁎ −.02 −.18 −.03 −.38 ⁎ (.69)
08. Openness 2.25 0.55 −.11 .03 .06 −.08 .09 −.22 ⁎ .33 ⁎ (.77)
09. Agreeableness 2.81 0.38 −.14 .05 −.13 .06 −.07 −.21 ⁎ .12 .21 (.64)
10. Conscientiousness 3.00 0.45 .06 −.05 .07 −.05 −.09 −.29 ⁎ .14 .02 .11 (.81)
11. Political skill 5.15 0.67 −.08 −.07 .18 −.15 .02 −.19 .51 ⁎ .37 ⁎ .12 .28 ⁎ (.90)
12. Get along 4.23 0.45 −.21 −.12 −.10 −.04 .01 .06 .26 ⁎ .08 .16 .08 .33 ⁎ (.78)
13. Get ahead 2.96 0.67 −.01 .04 .08 −.01 −.02 −.07 .20 .19 −.28 ⁎ .10 .26 ⁎ .11 (.82)
14. Cooperation 3.24 0.50 −.03 −.13 −.03 .09 −.06 −.04 .06 −.07 −.13 .04 .07 .10 −.02 —
15. Potential 2.62 0.91 .11 −.15 −.11 −.10 −.01 −.12 .09 −.02 −.05 .10 .20 .02 .13 .03

Note. N = 90; gender: 0 = female, 1 = male; job tenure in months.


⁎ p b .05.
144 G. Blickle et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 78 (2011) 136–148

Table 4
Hierarchical regression analyses of cooperation and promotablity assessments by supervisors on work values of getting along, ahead, political skill, and controls
(Study 2).

Criterion = cooperation assessment by Criterion = promotability assessment by


supervisors supervisors

Predictors Β ΔR2 ΔR2 Β ΔR2 ΔR2

Block

1 Gender −.05 .15


Age −.34 ⁎ −.07
Education −.04 .01
Position .12 −.14
Tenure .30 ⁎ −.07
.07 .07 .05 .05
2 Neuroticism −.09 −.13
Extraversion .03 .05
Openness −.05 −.03
Agreeableness −.15 −.08
Conscientiousness .02 .07
.03 .10 .03 .08
3 Motive to get along .09 −.04
Motive to get ahead −.10 .09
Political skill .11 .29 †
.02 .12 .06 .14
4 Getting along × Political skill .22 ⁎
.04 † .16 †
4 Getting ahead × Political skill .23 ⁎
.05 ⁎ .19 ⁎

Note. N = 90; gender: 0 = female, 1 = male.



p b .075.
⁎ p b .05.

Hypothesis 2b proposed a significant positive interaction of getting ahead × political skill on supervisors' assessments of
employees' promotability. Table 4 (right hand side) presents the hierarchical moderated regression results including the controls.
The getting ahead × political skill interaction term explained a significant proportion of additional variance in promotability
ratings (β = .23, p b .05, ΔR2 = .05). As can be seen in Fig. 4, employees high on getting ahead but low on political skill received
promotability assessments that were .93 SD less than employees high on getting along and also high on political skill. These results
provide support for Hypothesis 2b.

Fig. 3. Interaction of political skill and work value of getting along on supervisory ratings of cooperation (Study 2).
G. Blickle et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 78 (2011) 136–148 145

Fig. 4. Interaction of political skill and work value of getting ahead on supervisory ratings of promotability (Study 2).

Discussion

Contributions of the research

The data provide consistent support for the hypotheses in this two-study investigation because socioanalytic theory was
operationalized and assessed directly, and with more appropriate measures (i.e., the motives to get along and ahead were
measured by work values). These results have several implications. First, socioanalytic theory needs adequate empirical
operationalizations. Second, the fact that the present results “constructively replicate” and extend prior tests of socioanalytic
theory (e.g., Blickle et al., 2008, 2010; Witt & Ferris, 2003), they contribute importantly to the degree of confidence that can be
placed in the obtained results across studies and the scientific status and legitimacy of the theory. Finally, the convergence of
evidence empirically testing socioanalytic theory using U.S. (Hogan & Holland, 2003; Witt & Ferris, 2003) and German (Blickle
et al., 2008, 2010; present two-study investigation) samples indicates that the theory is robust to potential cross-cultural
differences.

Strengths and limitations

One strength of this study is its support and specification of socioanalytic theory. Empirical findings based on studies having
tested socioanalytic theory, so far, have been somewhat inconsistent. The present two-study investigation sheds light on such
inconsistency by combining socioanalytic theory with the two-level model on the relationship between basic personality traits
and context-specific work values by McCrae and Costa (1996). Thus, we better specified socioanalytic theory by adding a more
adequate operationalization.
In Study 1, the motives to get ahead and get along were conceptualized for the first time as work values (i.e., as would be
expected from socioanalytic theory). As expected, these work values were uncorrelated and the scales exhibited good reliabilities.
As predicted by socioanalytic theory, the interaction of the work values and social competency (i.e., as operationalized by political
skill) positively predicted job performance ratings by supervisors. Thus, in the first direct test of socioanalytic theory (i.e., using
appropriate measures of values), the hypotheses consistently were supported both for the motive to get along and the motive to
get ahead.
Additionally, although neither motive was directly associated with job performance ratings, political skill was positively
associated with job performance ratings (in line with previous findings by Semadar et al., 2006 and Blickle, Ferris, et al., in press,
Blickle, Kramer et al., in press). However, the requirement of dyadic response erected a higher hurdle for participation than does
the typical single-source survey which is in line with previous research (Thompson, 2005).
Hogan and Holland (2003) called for aligning predictors with criterion measures instead of using global overall job performance
ratings. Therefore, Study 2 was developed to test whether the interaction of the work value reflecting the motive to get
along × political skill specifically predicted the contextual performance dimension of cooperation (Hypothesis 1b) and whether the
interaction of the work value reflecting the motive to get ahead × political skill specifically predicted assessments of promotability
(Hypothesis 2b). To increase external validity, we drew on these performance assessments as part of the regular annual
146 G. Blickle et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 78 (2011) 136–148

performance appraisals in a company from the German finance industry. So, contrary to Study 1, Study 2 was conducted in only one
organization. Additionally, all participants worked in the sales department and operated under the same compensation and
promotion systems.
In Study 2 (i.e., as in Study 1), the predictions by socioanalytic theory were consistently supported both for the motive to get
along and the motive to get ahead. Study 2 has several noteworthy strengths. Criterion measures were aligned with predictors
instead of using global overall job performance ratings. Instead of sampling employee–supervisor dyads from different
organizations, we focused on one specific organization and employees with the same kind of job (sales) in the organization. This
provided a high level of control over extraneous factors, thus helping to exclude alternative explanations of the findings.
Study 2 also had some limitations. One limitation of Study 2 is that we used self-reports of performance ratings (i.e.,
cooperation and promotability assessments) instead of archival data of performance assessments, because the organization would
not release the actual performance ratings data. However, because the performance ratings were available to the employees, they
only had to copy these archival performance ratings as their self-reported measure of cooperation and promotability, thus
ensuring greater validity of these measures. In addition, based on Tyler and Lind (1992), we also asked the participants to provide a
self-assessment on exactly the same items to provide the participants with a stage for self-presentation. Thus, participants should
see no necessity to fake the reports on the supervisors' evaluations because they had their personal view considered.
Another limitation is that the performance ratings were 1-item scales, which do not permit a reliability calculation. Next, it is
also a limitation of this study that the response rate was low. The requirement of disclosing one's supervisor's performance ratings
may have erected a higher hurdle for participation than does the typical self-assessment survey. However, the sample did not
differ significantly from the whole group of salespersons in the company. A final limitation is that the study was cross-sectional
and not predictive in nature. We argued that contextualized measures of social motives are important. However, this implies that
the context may actually shape these measures. Therefore, we controlled for a broad array of contextual features, such as sex, age,
education, position, and job tenure. In the same vein, we also controlled for the Big Five basic personality traits thereby excluding
extraneous explanations of our findings.
A final potential limitation we should mention deals with the extent to which self-reports of political skill might be biased, or
whether they are construct valid reflections of the overall construct, as might be indicated in part by significant correlations with
other reports of political skill (e.g., from supervisors, or peers). Semadar (2004) reported a significant correlation between self-
reports of political skill and supervisor assessments of political skill (i.e., r = .36, p b .01), and Liu (2006) reported significant
relationship between self-assessments of political skill and co-worker assessments of political skill (i.e., r = .29, p b .01).
Finally, Blickle, Ferris, et al. (in press) reported significant correlations between employee self-assessments of political skill
with rater A (r = .25, p b .01) and rater B (i.e., r = .29, p b .01) assessments of the political skill construct in Study 1 and self-
assessments and peer-assessments of target political skill (i.e., r = .37, p b .01) in Study 2. Therefore, these pieces of evidence from
several studies appear to provide sufficient support for the construct validity of self-reports of political skill to warrant using them
alone in the present investigation.

Directions for future research

The interaction of work values and political skill demonstrated effects on job performance ratings; however, the effects were
moderate. Thus, other factors (e.g., GMA) still are important for the prediction of job performance in the workplace and perhaps
should be considered along with work values and social competency measures in multi-variable predictive batteries. Indeed,
theory and research have suggested that expanded predictor models should be employed in order to maximize the prediction of
job performance (e.g., Schmidt & Hunter, 1998; Sternberg, 1994), and presumably similar statements could be made accurately
about the prediction of assessments of contextual performance and promotability (e.g., Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005).
Because self-presentation and reputation building represents an external focus of the socioanalytic theory (Hogan, 1991;
Hogan & Shelton, 1998), there are future research implications for the reputation construct as it relates to organizational
phenomena. Zinko, Ferris, Blass, and Laird (2007) also developed a theory of personal reputation in organizations, which
incorporates the roles of political skill and important work outcomes of job performance and career success. Future research
should build an integrated theory, incorporating socioanalytic theory in a general conceptualization of personal reputation in
organizations.
In different work contexts, different core competencies are essential for being successful. As Blickle, Kramer, et al. (2009) have
shown, in enterprising work contexts (Holland, 1997), political skill forms the core competency and, as such, tends to be a
significant predictor of job performance. In Study 2, all participants worked in an enterprising work context. Future research
should try to identify the core competencies of different work contexts (e.g., using Holland's, 1997 R-I-A-S-E-C classification
scheme) and attempt to disentangle how they interact with the self-presentational and reputation building efforts due to political
skill in the present investigation.
Another potential direction for future research is to examine the nature and composition of social competency. As reported by
Hogan and Shelton (1998), social competency has been argued to contain several dimensions, including the ability to persuade
others, flexibility, sensitivity to others, ability to instill trust in others, consistency in interactions, and accountability to others.
These categories are quite consistent with the political skill construct, emphasizing abilities to persuade and instill trust in others, as
well as flexibility and interpersonal sensitivity. Future research could test the socioanalytic model using social ability constructs that
address other aspects, such as consistency or accountability, thus expanding our understanding of the nature of social competency.
G. Blickle et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 78 (2011) 136–148 147

In a related manner, we encourage organizational scientists in this area to begin to more critically examine the proliferation of
social effectiveness constructs that have emerged over the years to assess their distinctiveness and/or overlap. As suggested by
Ferris, Perrewé, and Douglas (2002), with so many different social competency constructs now in the literature that go by so many
different labels (e.g., ego resilience, social skill, self-monitoring, social competence, interpersonal acumen, political skill, etc.),
confusion quickly can emerge as to how these various constructs relate to one another as well as to important organizational
outcomes.

Practical implications

The findings of this investigation suggest some practical implications for organizations. First, because the relationship between
an employee's work values and performance and effectiveness is influenced by political skill, some high performers quite likely may
not be recognized for their efforts. Such lack of recognition may result in feelings of injustice and reduced satisfaction and
commitment. Thus, organizations might be wise to engage in the training and development of political skill in their employees,
which can yield positive benefits. Power has been found to positively correlate with attitudinal compliance and organizational
commitment (Rahim & Afza, 1993) and with job satisfaction. Because politically skilled individuals can better enact expert and
referent power and ensure favorable interactions with others, it is likely that increasing the political skill of the workforce can lead
to more satisfied and more committed employees.
Based on the multilevel theory of personality manifestations, personnel selection could profit from using context-specific work
values as manifestations of personality at work instead of basic and general personality traits. In addition, personnel selection
should use a multiple hurdle model (i.e., applicants should demonstrate above average work values of getting along, getting ahead,
and above average political skill). As the positive interactions in the present research have shown, it is the conjoint effect of several
predictors that increases effectiveness.

Conclusion

Hogan's (1991; Hogan & Shelton, 1998) socioanalytic theory has been instructive and useful to the field for developing a more
informed understanding of employee job performance and behavior in organizations. Furthermore, although empirical tests of the
theoretical tenets have demonstrated some support, that support has been mixed (e.g., Blickle et al., 2008, 2010; Witt & Ferris,
2003). More careful scrutiny of this empirical work indicates that the use of personality traits as proxies for work values may be
problematic in not permitting direct tests of the socioanalytic theory and in producing the mixed results.
The present two-study investigation measured work values directly and thus was aimed at providing a more specific and direct
test of socioanalytic theory, which was extended beyond job performance ratings to also examine effects on contextual
performance (i.e., cooperation) and promotability assessments. The results across the two studies provided strong support for the
hypotheses, and as such, we hope these results stimulate scholars to pursue further work in this important area of scientific inquiry.

References

Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 3−26.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and job performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go
next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9−30.
Berings, D., De Fruyt, F., & Bouwen, R. (2004). Work values and personality traits as predictors of enterprising and social vocational interests. Personality and
Individual Differences, 36, 349−364.
Blickle, G. (2000). Do work values predict the use of intraorganizational influence strategies? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 196−205.
Blickle, G., Ferris, G.R., Munyon, T.P., Momm, T., Zettler, I., Schneider, P.B., & Buckley, M.R. (in press). A multi-source, multi-study investigation of job performance
prediction by political skill. Applied Psychology: An International Review.
Blickle, G., Kramer, J., Schneider, P.B., Meurs, J.A., Ferris, G.R., Mierke, J., Witzki, A.H., & Momm, T.D. (in press). Role of political skill in job performance prediction
beyond general mental ability and personality in cross-sectional and predictive studies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.
Blickle, G., Kramer, J., Zettler, I., Momm, T., Summers, J. K., Munyon, T. P., et al. (2009). Job demands as a moderator of the political skill—Job performance
relationship. Career Development International, 14, 333−350.
Blickle, G., Meurs, J. A., Zettler, I., Solga, J., Noethen, D., Kramer, J., et al. (2008). Personality, political skill, and job performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72,
377−387.
Blickle, G., Momm, T. D., Kramer, J., Mierke, J., Liu, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (2009). Construct and criterion-related validation of a measure of emotional reasoning skills: A
two-study investigation. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17, 101−118.
Blickle, G., Wendel, S., & Ferris, G. R. (2010). Political skill as moderator of personality—Job performance relationships in socioanalytic theory: Test of the getting
ahead motive in automobile sales. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 326−335.
Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1993). NEO-Fünf-Faktoren-Inventar (NEO-FFI) nach Costa und McCrae. Göttingen, FRG: Hogrefe.
Bowen, C., Swim, J. K., & Jacobs, R. R. (2000). Evaluating gender biases on actual job performance or real people: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
33, 648−665.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., & Aiken, L. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cook, J. D., Hepworth, S. J., Wall, T. D., & Warr, P. B. (1981). The experience of work: A compendium and review of 249 measures and their use. London: Academic Press.
Ferris, G. R., Bowen, M. G., Treadway, D. C., Hochwarter, W. A., Hall, A. T., & Perrewé, P. L. (2006). The assumed linearity of organizational phenomena: Implications
for occupational stress and well-being. In P. L. Perrewé, & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Research in occupational stress and well-being, vol. 5. (pp. 205−232)Oxford, UK:
Elsevier Science Ltd.
Ferris, G. R., Perrewé, P. L., & Douglas, C. (2002). Social effectiveness in organizations: Construct validity and research directions. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 9, 49−63.
Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., Douglas, C., et al. (2005). Development and validation of the political skill
inventory. Journal of Management, 31, 126−152.
Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Perrewé, P. L., Brouer, R. L., Douglas, C., & Lux, S. (2007). Political skill in organizations. Journal of Management, 33, 290−320.
148 G. Blickle et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 78 (2011) 136–148

Hogan, R. (1983). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. M. Page (Ed.), 1982 Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 55−89). Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.
Hogan, R. (1991). Personality and personality assessment. In M. D. Dunnette, & L. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology
(pp. 873−919)., second edition Chicago: Rand McNally.
Hogan, R. (1996). A socioanalytic perspective on the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives
(pp. 163−179). New York: Guildford Press.
Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 100−112.
Hogan, R., & Shelton, D. (1998). A socioanalytic perspective on job performance. Human Performance, 11, 129−144.
Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments, Third edition Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources, Inc.
Isserstedt, W., Middendorff, E., Fabian, G., Schnitzer, K., & Wolter, A. (2007). Die wirtschaftliche und soziale Lage der Studierenden in der Bundesrepublik
Deutschland 2006: 18. Sozialerhebung des Deutschen Studentenwerks durchgeführt durch HIS Hochschul-Informations-System. Berlin: Bundesministerium
für Bildung und Forschung.
Jang, K. L., McCrae, R. R., Angleitner, A., Riemann, R., & Livesley, W. J. (1998). Heritability of facet-level traits in a cross-cultural twin sample: Support for a
hierarchical model of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1556−1565.
Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. (1992). Effects of work values on job choice decisions. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 261−271.
Liu, Y. (2006). The antecedents and consequences of emotion regulation at work. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Management, College of
Business, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.
Lofquist, L. H., & Dawis, R. V. (1971). Values as second-order needs in theory of work adjustment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 12, 12−19.
Macnab, D., & Fitzsimmons, G. W. (1987). A multitrait-multimethod study of work-related needs, values, and preferences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30, 1−15.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories: Theoretical contexts for the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-
factor-model of personality: theoretical perspectives (pp. 51−87). New York: Guilford Press.
Miller, D. C., & Salkind, N. J. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of research design and social measurement. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58,
367−408.
Perrewé, P. L., Zellars, K. L., Ferris, G. R., Rossi, A. M., Kacmar, C. J., & Ralston, D. A. (2004). Neutralizing job stressors: Political skill as an antidote to the dysfunctional
consequences of role conflict stressors. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 141−152.
Pryor, R. G. L. (1982). Values, preferences, needs, work ethics, and orientation to work: Toward a conceptual and empirical integration. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 20, 40−42.
Rahim, M. A., & Afza, M. (1993). Leader power, commitment, satisfaction, compliance, and propensity to leave a job among U.S. accountants. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 133, 611−625.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of
research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262−274.
Seifert, K. H., & Bergmann, C. (1983). Deutschsprachige Adaptation des Work Values Inventory von Super. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 27,
160−172.
Semadar, A. (2004). Interpersonal competencies and managerial performance: The role of emotional intelligence, leadership self-efficacy, self-monitory, and
political skill. Doctoral Dissertation. Department of Psychology. The University of Melbourne.
Semadar, A., Robbins, G., & Ferris, G. R. (2006). Comparing the validity of multiple social effectiveness constructs in the prediction of managerial job performance.
Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 27, 443−461.
Sternberg, R. J. (1994). The PRSVL model of person—Context interaction in the study of human potential. In M. Rumsey, C. Walker, & J. Harris (Eds.), Personnel
selection and classification (pp. 317−332). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Super, D. E. (1970). Work values inventory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Super, D. E. (1973). The work value inventor. In D. G. Zytowski (Ed.), Contemporary approaches to interest measurement. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Thompson, J. A. (2005). Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1011−1017.
Treadway, D. C., Ferris, G. R., Duke, A. B., Adams, G., & Thatcher, J. B. (2007). The moderating role of subordinate political skill on supervisors' impressions of
subordinate ingratiation and ratings of interpersonal facilitation. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 848−855.
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25. (pp. 115−191)New
York: Academic Press.
Waldmann, D. A., & Avolio, B. J. (1986). A meta-analysis of age differences in job performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 33−38.
Witt, L. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Social skill as moderator of the conscientiousness-performance relationship: Convergent results across four studies. The Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 809−820.
Zinko, R., Ferris, G. R., Blass, F. R., & Laird, M. D. (2007). Toward a theory of reputation in organizations. In J. J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human
resources management, Vol. 26. (pp. 169−209)Oxford, UK: JAI Press/Elsevier Science Ltd.

You might also like