Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological Association

2005, Vol. 90, No. 3, 509 –522 0021-9010/05/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.509

Leadership, Collective Personality, and Performance

David A. Hofmann and Lisa M. Jones
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

By viewing behavior regularities at the individual and collective level as functionally isomorphic, a
referent-shift compositional model for the Big 5 personality dimensions is developed. On the basis of this
compositional model, a common measure of Big 5 personality at the individual level is applied to the
collective as a whole. Within this framework, it is also hypothesized that leadership (i.e., transforma-
tional, transactional, and passive) would predict collective personality and that collective personality
would be significantly related to collective performance. The results supported these hypotheses using a
sample of franchised units. On the basis of recent research at the individual level, several interactions
among the various personality dimensions were hypothesized and supported. Implications are discussed.

Individuals and collectives— either groups, teams, or organiza-
tions— have been viewed as engaging in behavioral regularities
(e.g., Cyert & March, 1963; M. S. Feldman & Rafaeli, 2002;
Gersick & Hackman, 1990; Hogan, 1991; Nelson & Winter, 1982).
These regularities, when considered at both the individual and
collective level, are often described using everyday language such
as “aggressive,” “competitive,” or “passive.” Although individuals
are often described using terms from the five-factor model of
personality (FFM or Big Five; i.e., Conscientiousness, Openness to
Experience, Extraversion, Emotional Stability, and Agreeable-
ness), a question remains regarding the degree to which these
dimensions can be applied to behavioral regularities occurring at
the collective level (Stewart, 2003). Even though collectives are
sometimes described using dimensions similar to those in the Big
Five, there has been no systematic research investigating the
behavioral regularities of groups in terms of the FFM classification
(Stewart, 2003). The primary objective of the present study was to
provide an initial investigation into the plausibility of applying the
dimensions of the Big Five to the collective level—in this case, to
individual units of a franchised organization. In addition, we
sought to investigate the relationships among leadership, collective
personality, and collective performance.
Behavioral Regularities Across Levels
The term personality is often used to describe behavioral regu-
larities occurring at the individual level. In particular, Hogan
David A. Hofmann and Lisa M. Jones, Kenan-Flagler Business School,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
We thank Steve Caldwell, David Chan, Gilad Chen, and Frederick
Morgeson for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to David A.
Hofmann, Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill, CB-3490, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3490. E-mail: dhofmann@
unc.edu
In addition to these analyses, it was suggested during the review process
that we consider using other more common controls such as geographic
differences and size of the store. Thus, we reanalyzed all the data control-
ling for geographic region and the number of workers per unit. All of the
key findings were replicated with similar theoretical implications as the
results presented in the present article.
509
(1991) noted that the word personality is typically used to refer to
either (a) the underlying structures, dynamics, processes, and pro-
pensities that bring about certain behavioral regularities; or (b) the
way in which these regularities are observed and described by
others in terms of their content. This second use of the word
personality emanates from the lexical approach to personality
assessment, which, over time, converged on the Big Five dimen-
sions. In other words, the Big Five dimensions of personality—
which include Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience, Agree-
ableness, Extraversion, and Emotional Stability— describe
behavioral regularities at the individual level in terms of their
observable content (Hogan, 1991). For example, individuals pos-
sessing the Big Five trait of Conscientiousness would be those who
have recurring behavioral regularities indicative of being orga-
nized, efficient, systematic, and steady. Similarly, individuals pos-
sessing the trait of Agreeableness would demonstrate behavior
regularities described as being helpful, considerate, pleasant, and
cooperative.
At the collective level, which includes groups and teams as well
as organizations, these behavioral regularities are typically referred
to as routines, habits, norms, organizational routines, and path
dependencies (e.g., Cyert & March, 1963; D. C. Feldman, 1984;
M. S. Feldman & Rafaeli, 2002; Gersick & Hackman, 1990; Levitt
& March, 1988; Nelson & Winter, 1982). In terms of formal
definitions, the more macroorganizational regularities have been
defined as “recurring patterns of behavior of multiple organiza-
tional members involved in performing organizational tasks”
(M. S. Feldman & Rafaeli, 2002, p. 311). At the more micro (team)
level, these regularities are typically defined as norms (i.e., “in-
formal rules that groups adopt to regulate and regularize group
members’ behavior”; D. C. Feldman, 1984, p. 47). In each of these
cases, the definitions center on behavioral regularities occurring
within a collection of individuals.
Given that behavioral regularities occur across levels of analy-
sis, an interesting question arises regarding the degree to which a
well-established and validated taxonomy of dimensions describing
these regularities at the individual level—namely, the Big Five
dimensions— can be applied to teams or other collectives. In
attempting to provide an initial response to this question, Stewart
(2003) noted that there is some research that describes collectives,
in this case teams, using terms similar to those used in the Big
Five. For example, Bettenhausen and Murnighan (1991) created
510 HOFMANN AND JONES
bargaining teams that differed substantially on the Big Five trait of
Agreeableness, and Davis-Sacks (1990) discussed teams that
missed deadlines and were careless, that is, teams that exhibited a
lack of Conscientiousness. Cohen and Denison’s (1990) investi-
gation of flight teams compared what could be considered extra-
verted teams with introverted teams (i.e., those teams that were
talkative, open, and expressive as compared with those described
as being reserved). Lastly, Saavedra (1990) described teams that
either did or did not look for ways to do things differently and
creatively—which, in the Big Five taxonomy, constitute markers
of Openness to Experience (Stewart, 2003).
This initial evidence notwithstanding, there has not been a
systematic investigation into the application of the Big Five di-
mensions to the collective level (Stewart, 2003). Our objective is
to apply the Big Five dimensions to the collective level as well as
to investigate how the various Big Five dimensions of collective
personality may be associated with leadership and collective per-
formance. We refer to our application of personality to the collec-
tive level as collective personality. In this sense, collective per-
sonality describes the routines occurring in the collective as a
whole. In terms of our multilevel theory, we believe that the
behavioral routines of individual personality and collective rou-
tines are functionally isomorphic (Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999);
that is, they produce the same outcomes—namely, regularized,
consistent patterns of behavior that can be observed and described
by others, and which can be labeled as individual and collective
personality, respectively. From a methodological perspective, we
adopt what Chan (1998) described as a referent-shift composi-
tional model. In other words, we took an accepted measure of the
Big Five (Goldberg, 1992) and adjusted it such that individuals
rated the collective as a whole. From a theoretical perspective, we
develop hypotheses below regarding the relationship between sev-
eral dimensions of leadership and collective personality. We then
hypothesize how the various dimensions of collective personality
relate to the collective’s performance.
In addition to these main effect relationships, there is recent
research at the individual level suggesting that several dimensions
of the Big Five may have interactive relationships with perfor-
mance. Thus, we also develop a hypothesis concerning the inter-
active relationships between collective personality and perfor-
mance. It is important to note that all hypotheses, variables,
measures, and subsequent analyses are at the collective level of
analysis (in this case, the stores/units of a franchised fast-food
restaurant).
Leadership and Collective Personality
Although we argued above that individual and collective per-
sonality are functionally isomorphic—that is, they both describe
behavioral regularities using similar terms—we emphasize that the
underlying processes that bring about these behavioral regularities
are different. Individual personality is inherently an intrapersonal
phenomena, with a foundation in cognitive and biological pro-
cesses. Collective personality, however, is inherently an interper-
sonal phenomena. This idea is evidenced by M. S. Feldman and
Rafaeli’s (2002) definition of collective routines, a definition that
emphasizes that these routines involve multiple organizational
members. In fact, it is this notion of required interaction that sets
apart collective constructs from those residing at the individual
level (Giddens, 1993; Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999; Weick, 1979).
More precisely, as individuals in a collective work together, they
begin to develop shared expectations and norms that, in turn, lead
to the emergence of observable behavioral regularities (Giddens,
1993; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999).
The key distinction between these collective regularities and those
occurring at the individual level is the shared, interpersonal, and
interaction-based foundation of collective personality, as opposed
to the intrapersonal foundation of individual personality. It is also
important to point out here that these collective norms and routines
are often transmitted to new members of the collective and can
often continue after the original members of the collective leave
(Barker, 1993; Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999; Weick, 1979).
This transmission of norms and routines to new members
should result in a consistency in behavior even as different
subgroups come together to work at any given point in time
within the unit.
These differences in the foundation of individual and collective
personality have implications for the degree to which each can be
influenced by external factors. For example, individual personality
has been assumed to be relatively stable after an individual reaches
adulthood (Costa & McCrae, 1994). Although there has been some
debate surrounding this issue (Costa & McCrae, 2002; Roberts,
1997), it is safe to assume that individual personality does not
change radically during adulthood, but rather the changes that do
occur are subtle and require long time periods.
In contrast to individual personalities, collective personalities
only emerge and develop as individuals come together and begin
to interact. As a result of being relatively recently formed, collec-
tive personalities have a greater likelihood of being influenced by
external factors. Leadership is potentially one such external factor.
A leader, for example, who consistently emphasizes exploration,
creativity, and challenging the status quo could engender collective
routines consistent with the dimension of Openness to Experience
(Stewart, 2003). Similarly, a leader who alternatively grants and
then rescinds autonomy could cause emotionally unstable behav-
ioral routines to develop (Stewart & Manz, 1995).
In order to more formally investigate the relationship between
leadership and collective personality, we considered how the spe-
cific dimensions of transformational, transactional, and passive
leadership (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978) would relate to the various
dimensions of collective personality. Transformational leadership
is, by definition, leadership designed to motivate subordinates to
exceed expectations. Specifically, transformational leaders com-
municate a clear vision, inspire commitment to that vision, as well
as engender trust and motivation from their subordinates. As a
result, subordinates are willing to perform beyond minimum ex-
pectations in ways that foster organizational effectiveness (e.g.,
Bass, 1985; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, &
Bommer, 1996; Yukl, 1989). Research has shown that transfor-
mational leadership is related to organizational performance and
citizenship behaviors as well as to subordinate commitment,
satisfaction, and perceptions of trust (e.g., Judge & Bono, 2000;
Masi & Cooke, 2000; Pillai, Schriesheim, & Williams, 1999;
Podsakoff et al., 1996; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, &
Fetter, 1990).
In contrast to the inspirational aspects of transformational lead-
ership, transactional leadership is based on balanced exchanges
(Bass, 1985; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996), in which
the focus is on producing efficiency by reinforcing negotiated
levels of performance. In order to achieve performance that is in
 COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY
keeping with expectations, transactional leaders provide appropri-
ate rewards on the basis of performance, and they actively
manage exceptions. In addition to transformational and trans-
actional leadership, recent research has also discussed passive
leadership, or the absence of leadership (e.g., Bass, 1985; Den
Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopman, 1997). In general, the pas-
sive leader avoids decision making and the exercising of su-
pervisory responsibility.
We believe that transformational, transactional, and passive
leaders will send different messages to subordinates regarding
what is valued and expected in the work unit or collective. The
shared norms and expectations resulting from these leadership
styles will result in different behavioral regularities within the
collective and, therefore, different collective personalities. In other
words, the behavior of the leader—what they measure, reinforce,
model, communicate, and teach— establishes shared expectations
and norms among the employees regarding appropriate normative
behavior. These expectations and norms, in turn, result in forms
of social control that further reinforce and strengthen the be-
havioral regularities within the collective (D. C. Feldman, 1984;
O’Reilly & Chatman, 1996). Depending on the type of leader-
ship displayed, these behavioral regularities will produce dif-
ferent outputs (e.g., conscientious or agreeable behaviors) at the
collective level.
For example, the intellectual stimulation and visionary goal
aspects of transformational leadership should establish norms and
expectations that support risk taking, questioning the status quo,
and creativity as well as norms that encourage boldness and high
energy. In terms of a collective personality, these characteristics
would engender behavioral regularities high on both collective
Openness (intellect) and Extraversion (surgency), respectively.
Similarly, the individual consideration and support provided and
modeled by the transformational leader should serve to establish
an environment high in cooperation and cohesion (Avolio & Bass,
1995)—in other words, one containing a high degree of collective
Agreeableness.
There is also evidence at the individual level that transforma-
tional leadership motivates employees to fulfill their job duties
more diligently and with more effort (Podsakoff et al., 1996). At
the collective level, this should result in shared norms and expec-
tations associated with a high collective Conscientiousness. Given
these arguments, we hypothesized the following:
Hypothesis 1a: Transformational leadership is positively re-
lated to collective Openness.
Hypothesis 1b: Transformational leadership is positively re-
lated to collective Agreeableness.
Hypothesis 1c: Transformational leadership is positively re-
lated to collective Extraversion.
Hypothesis 1d: Transformational leadership is positively re-
lated to collective Conscientiousness.
Although we believe that transformational leadership will be
most clearly related to several dimensions of collective personal-
ity, the focus transactional leaders place on efficiency and meeting
expectations should also be related to collective personality. As
noted above, transactional leaders focus on ensuring that perfor-
511
mance meets negotiated and clearly specified expectations. Lead-
ers who emphasize contingent rewards and who reinforce the
importance of meeting performance expectations should create
behavioral regularities within the organization that are efficient,
systematic, and organized as well as ones that encourage adher-
ence to organizational policies and procedures. In other words,
these leaders create shared norms associated with behaviors that
manifest high levels of collective Conscientiousness. Given this,
we hypothesized the following:
Hypothesis 2: Transactional leadership is positively associ-
ated with collective Conscientiousness.
The final leadership dimension—passive leadership—is typi-
cally negatively related to both transformational and transactional
leadership (e.g., Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999). A passive leader is
an individual who is indecisive and who generally “shirks” their
supervisory responsibilities. A passive, or absent leader, typically
does not model, reinforce, or actively monitor the performance of
his or her subordinates with respect to meeting expectations,
challenging the status quo, risk taking, and the like. As a result, the
norms and expectations associated with this type of leadership are
likely not to exhibit high levels of collective Openness, Conscien-
tiousness, or Extraversion (surgency). In addition, this passive
form of leadership— because of the lack of clear direction, expec-
tations, and rewards attached to this style—is likely to result in a
situation that is much less consistent on a day-to-day basis. In other
words, the lack of leadership behaviors of the passive leader is
likely to result in a more neurotic (i.e., less emotionally stable)
collective personality. Given these arguments, we hypothesized
the following:
Hypothesis 3a: Passive leadership is negatively related to
collective Openness.
Hypothesis 3b: Passive leadership is negatively related to
collective Conscientiousness.
Hypothesis 3c: Passive leadership is negatively related to
collective Extraversion (surgency).
Hypothesis 3d: Passive leadership is negatively related to
collective Emotional Stability.
Collective Personality and Collective Performance
One dimension of individual personality that has been consis-
tently related to performance within organizational settings is
Conscientiousness (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Perrewe & Spector,
2002). At the collective level, Conscientiousness is associated with
expectations and norms (i.e., behavioral regularities) supporting
and reinforcing the efficient and systematic performance of roles
within the group. In addition, in group settings, in which cooper-
ation and coordination of activities is necessary, behavioral regu-
larities characterized by collective Agreeableness (i.e., norms for
helpfulness, consideration, and cooperation) would also be critical
to performance.
Although common sense suggests that collectives with behav-
ioral norms that support conscientious role performance, cooper-
ation, and helping others will perform better, two lines of research
also support this logic. For example, research investigating orga-
512 HOFMANN AND JONES
nizational citizenship behavior (OCB) has found that OCBs related
to helping (i.e., cooperative and helping behavior) were signifi-
cantly related to unit effectiveness in terms of both quality and
quantity of performance (Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie,
1997). In addition, the group process literature suggests that teams
have more effective group functioning and performance when
individuals perform their roles within the group more diligently,
and when they cooperate and help each other (e.g., Campion,
Medsker, & Higgs, 1993; Guzzo & Shea, 1992).
Although Conscientiousness and Agreeableness are the two
most obvious collective personality dimensions related to perfor-
mance, several other dimensions should be related to collective
performance as well. Collective Openness, for example—which
would emphasize norms for challenging the status quo and for
demonstrating innovation and creativity— could clearly be related
to organizational performance because openness encourages orga-
nizational learning and ongoing improvement. An emotionally
unstable collective personality could have the opposite effect, in
the sense that it would be indicative of a situation that was
high-strung and emotional. In this situation, the interactions among
individuals would result in interpersonal difficulties, and perhaps
even a breakdown in effective group functioning. In summary, we
hypothesized the following:
Hypothesis 4a: Collective Conscientiousness is positively
related to organizational performance.
Hypothesis 4b: Collective Agreeableness is positively related
to organizational performance.
Hypothesis 4c: Collective Openness is positively related to
organizational performance.
Hypothesis 4d: Collective Emotional Stability is positively
related to organizational performance.
Although overall performance is clearly important to investi-
gate, we believe that the variability in performance over time is
important to investigate as well. For example, within the business
operations research, it is generally accepted that reducing the
variance in a process improves product quality (e.g., Chase,
Aquilano, & Jacobs, 1998). Although this notion of investigating
the variance in performance over time has not received significant
attention within organizational behavior and applied psychology,
two recent notable examples have argued that this aspect of per-
formance is an important outcome variable. For example, in the
context of nuclear power plants, Toquam, Macaulay, Westra,
Fujita, and Murphy (1997) argued that unreliable or inconsistent
performance of the control room crew can result in disastrous
outcomes. At the organizational level, variability in firm perfor-
mance over time may increase the frequency of risk-taking behav-
ior, make planning and decision making more difficult, lead to
difficult supplier relationships, negatively impact cash flows, in-
crease the costs of external capital, and potentially influence the
ultimate survival of the organization (Sorensen, 2002). In the case
of the present investigation, more reliable performance at the
collective level allows for more consistent product quality and
cash flows, facilitates budgeting and control efforts at the corpo-
rate level, and provides more consistent customer service.
In addition to being associated with overall performance, the
shared expectations and norms associated with collective person-
ality should also impact performance variability. In particular, the
shared expectations and norms associated with collective Consci-
entiousness and Agreeableness should not only result in role
behavior being performed more diligently (Conscientiousness) and
in the creation of more effective and cooperative working relation-
ships (Agreeableness) but also have a social control function as
well. This social control function ensures that corrective actions
are taken when role performance fails to meet expectations, or
when individuals are uncooperative (i.e., violate shared norms and
expectations; O’Reilly and Chatman, 1996). This social-control-
based corrective function, as well as the clear expectations that it
signals, should result in much more consistent and reliable role
performance over time in the presence of high collective Consci-
entiousness and Agreeableness.
The relationship between performance variability and collective
Openness and Emotional Stability, however, is likely to involve a
slightly different process. Collective Openness, also referred to as
“intellect” (Goldberg, 1992), would be indicative of norms and
shared expectations that encourage a challenging of the status quo
as well as creativity and innovation. In other words, collective
Openness is reflective of behavioral regularities that likely lead to
an ongoing effort to challenge the current way of doing things.
Although these changes may initially increase the variability in
performance (as they are implemented and integrated into daily
operations), the overall effect of these changes should serve to
increase quality and, as a result, reduce performance variability
over time.
Collective Emotional Stability (or instability) should also logi-
cally be related to performance variability over time. To the extent
that shared norms take on an emotionally unstable nature (i.e.,
become high-strung, touchy, emotional), both interpersonal rela-
tionships and group processes are likely to degenerate, and, as a
result, performance reliability will likely decline as well (resulting
in an increase in the variability of performance over time). Given
these arguments, we hypothesized the following:
Hypothesis 5a: Collective Conscientiousness is related to
more consistent performance over time.
Hypothesis 5b: Collective Agreeableness is related to more
consistent performance over time.
Hypothesis 5c: Collective Openness is related to more con-
sistent performance over time.
Hypothesis 5d: Collective Emotional Stability is related to
more consistent performance over time.
Interactive Relationships Among the Dimensions of
Collective Personality
In addition to the overall main effects described above, we also
considered the potential for various dimensions of collective per-
sonality to interact in their prediction of performance. At the
individual level, there has been recent evidence supporting similar
interactive relationships. For example, Witt (2002) found a signif-
icant interaction between Extraversion and Conscientiousness such
that the relationship between Extraversion and performance was
positive in the context of high Conscientiousness but was negative
 COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY
for low-conscientious individuals. We envisioned the potential for
this same interaction to occur at the collective level. For example,
within the context of norms and shared expectations encouraging
the diligent performance of role behavior (Conscientiousness),
increasing levels of Extraversion, or surgency, could be effective
for performance. In other words, in the context of norms that
reinforce a clear focus on the work at hand, behavioral regularities
that emphasize being active, energetic, and assertive could benefit
group functioning—and they could also increase coordination
through the additional communication that exists in a highly ex-
traverted collective personality. Alternatively, if individuals are
not necessarily focused on the task at hand (i.e., low Conscien-
tiousness), the increasing levels of Extraversion could negatively
influence performance. For example, the increased communication
could be about nonwork-related issues, thus decreasing overall
performance as well as increasing the variability in performance
over time. Given these arguments, we hypothesized the following:
Hypothesis 6: The relationship between collective Extraver-
sion and both organizational performance and performance
variability is moderated by collective Conscientiousness.
Although we did not specify any other hypotheses regarding
potential interactions, given recent calls for investigations of con-
figural relationships among the various dimensions of personality
(Smith & Schneider, 2004), we investigated in an exploratory
fashion all other possible two-way interactions.
Taken together, Hypotheses 1a–3d specify relationships be-
tween leadership and collective personality, and Hypotheses 4a– 6
specify relationships between collective personality and collective
performance. Taken together, these hypotheses constitute an over-
all model depicting collective personality as the mediator between
leadership and performance. In addition to testing these separate
sets of hypotheses, we also assess this overall model.
Method
Participants
The participants were employees of a nationwide, franchised fast-service
pizza delivery company. Each store is managed independently and serves
as its own profit center. Specifically, the store managers (i.e., the referent
leaders in this study) have full responsibility for managing day-to-day store
operations, and they are responsible and rewarded for its ultimate profit-
ability. Store manager duties include overseeing all personnel functions,
store operations, inventory control, and personnel scheduling. For the
purposes of this study, we treated each store as a separate organization. In
addition, the store level of analysis was both our unit of theory and
analysis.
Usable data were obtained from 68 of 130 stores (52% response rate at
store level) and 448 employees. With respect to age, 13% of the respon-
dents were 18 years old or under, 42% were between 18 and 22 years old,
21% were 23–30 years old, 12% were 31– 40 years old, and another 12%
were over 40 years old. Sixty-five percent of the respondents were men.
Measures
Transformational leadership. The 36-item Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ 5x, short form; Avolio et al., 1999) was used to assess
transformational and transactional leadership. This instrument assesses
transformational leadership with the following dimensions: idealized in-
fluence, inspirational motivation, individual consideration, and intellectual
stimulation. Contingent reward, active management-by-exception, passive
513
management-by-exception, and laissez-faire management comprised the
transactional leadership dimension. Although the MLQ 5x was designed to
assess transformational and transactional leadership dimensions, several
recent studies have found evidence that passive management-by-exception
and laissez-faire leadership dimensions break into a third factor called
passive, or avoidant, leadership (e.g., Avolio et al., 1999; Den Hartog et al.,
1997). Consistent with this research, we created three subscales measuring
transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and passive leader-
ship. Internal consistency reliabilities at the individual level were .97, .79,
and .89, respectively.
In the context of the present study, we investigate general leadership and
how it impacts store performance. Given this goal, we investigated the
degree to which the various leadership scales could be aggregated to the
store level. With respect to aggregation, there was evidence that transfor-
mational leadership varied significantly across stores, F(67, 379) ⫽ 1.59,
p ⬍ .01. Intraclass correlation (ICC)(1), ICC(2), and median rwg(j) values
were .08, .37, and .95. Transactional leadership also varied significantly
across stores, F(67, 379) ⫽ 1.73, p ⬍ .01. ICC(1), ICC(2), and median
rwg(j) values were .10, .42, and .80. Passive leadership significantly varied
across groups as well, F(67, 380) ⫽ 1.78, p ⬍ .01. ICC(1), ICC(2), and
median rwg(j) values were .10, .43, and .85.
Although the analysis of variance (ANOVA), ICC(1), and rwg(j) values
are in keeping with past research involving aggregation (Campion et al.,
1993; Hofmann & Stetzer, 1996, 1998; Kozlowski & Hults, 1987), the
ICC(2) values are on the low side. As noted by Bliese (1998), ICC(2)
values are a function of ICC(1) values and group size. In the present study,
there was an average of only 6 –7 respondents per group. This relatively
small group size results in a slightly less reliable mean (i.e., lower ICC[2]
value). As noted by Bliese (1998), this unreliability will likely attenuate
relationships observed at the group level (just as unreliability at the
individual level attenuates observed relationships). In light of all the
evidence regarding the ANOVA, ICC(1), ICC(2), and rwg(j), we proceeded
to create aggregate measures of transformational, transactional, and passive
leadership, while noting here that the reliability of these means is less than
optimal. Overall, this unreliability should work against us in terms of
supporting our hypotheses. Thus, results presented using these measures
should be interpreted as conservative in light of the possible attenuation.
Internal consistency reliabilities at the aggregate level were .96, .92, and
.92, respectively.
Collective personality. In order to assess collective personality, we
began with Goldberg’s (1992) adjective-based measure of the Big Five,
which has been found to be a highly robust measure of the Big Five
(Goldberg, 1992). We selected 10 adjectives (balancing positive and neg-
ative words) describing Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Openness (in-
tellect), Extraversion (surgency), and Emotional Stability. We then ad-
justed the instructions of the measure in order to shift the focal referent
from the individual to the collective level (Chan, 1998; Morgeson &
Hofmann, 1999). Specifically, we asked individuals to rate the degree to
which each of the adjectives described the “character of their unit” and the
“typical behavior” in the store. Our measure of collective personality can
be found in the Appendix.
Initially, we investigated the measurement properties at the individual
level. First, we investigated the internal consistency reliabilities. Four of
the five internal consistency reliabilities yielded acceptable values (i.e.,
Conscientiousness, .85; Agreeableness, .89; Openness, .77; and Extraver-
sion, .67). Emotional Stability, however, yielded an unacceptably low
internal consistency reliability (.36). An exploratory factor analysis of the
items comprising the Emotional Stability scale produced a three-factor
solution. The factors consisted of one factor tapping emotional instability
(moody, temperamental, touchy, and high-strung), one factor tapping a
general emotional stability (relaxed, calm, and emotional—reverse scored),
and a negatively worded factor (unemotional, unexcitable, and not envi-
ous). Investigations of internal consistency reliability revealed that only the
first factor yielded acceptable levels of reliability (.75 vs. .40 and .37).
514 HOFMANN AND JONES
After these individual-level analyses, we investigated the measurement
properties at the collective level. With respect to internal consistency
reliability, a pattern emerged that was similar to the individual-level
pattern; that is, four of the five dimensions exhibited acceptable levels of
reliability (Conscientiousness, .90; Agreeableness, .95; Openness, .84; and
Extraversion, .76). Once again, Emotional Stability exhibited unacceptable
levels of reliability (.47). A factor analysis of these items again resulted in
a three-factor solution, largely replicating the individual-level results.
Specifically, the three factors represented an emotional instability factor
(temperamental, high-strung, moody, emotional, touchy), an emotionally
stable factor (relaxed, not envious, and calm), and a third factor indicating
a general lack of emotion (unemotional, unexcitable). Internal consistency
reliability estimates for the emotional instability factor and the lack of
emotion factor reached acceptable levels (i.e., .81 and .75, respectively).
The reliability for the emotionally stable factor was unacceptably low (i.e.,
.57), and, as a result, this factor was dropped from further consideration.
Given that one of the two remaining factors consisted of five versus two
items, we retained the emotional instability factor (i.e., temperamental,
high-strung, moody, emotional, touchy) as our measure of this aspect of the
Big Five. These items were reverse coded such that the scale scores
reflected Emotional Stability.
With respect to aggregation, a one-way ANOVA yielded significant
results for each of the five dimensions of collective personality: Consci-
entiousness, F(67, 380) ⫽ 2.07, p ⬍ .001; Agreeableness, F(67, 380) ⫽
2.01, p ⬍ .001; Openness, F(67, 380) ⫽ 1.62, p ⬍ .01; Extraversion, F(67,
380) ⫽ 1.98, p ⬍ .001; and Emotional Stability, F(67, 379) ⫽ 1.67, p ⬍
.01. ICC(1), ICC(2), and median rwg(j) values (James, Demaree, & Wolf,
1984, 1993), respectively, for each dimension were Conscientiousness, .14,
.52, and .90; Agreeableness, .13, .50, and .88; Openness, .09, .38, and .88;
Extraversion, .13, .50, and .91; and Emotional Stability, .09, .40, and .77.
As with our measures of leadership, the ANOVA, ICC(1), and rwg(j) results
were comparable to those reported in other multilevel research (Campion
et al., 1993; Hofmann & Stetzer, 1996, 1998; Kozlowski & Hults, 1987).
The ICC(2) values were a little lower than optimal, in part, probably
because of the relatively small group size (average of 6 –7 respondents per
group). This unreliability of the means may have attenuated the observed
relationships (Bliese, 1998), so the results presented below should be
viewed as conservative.
At the store level, the average intercorrelations among our measures
were higher than typically encountered at the individual level of analysis.
Although it is not surprising that aggregate correlations are higher than
individual-level correlations (see Ostroff, 1993), it is important to investi-
gate the degree to which the overall pattern of intercorrelations is similar
to those found in Goldberg (1992). We considered the ratings of person-
ality by liked others, as opposed to self-ratings, as a more reasonable
comparison because the participants in our study were asked to rate an
external entity (the store) instead of themselves. Table 1 presents the
intercorrelations among the five dimensions observed in our study as well
Table 1
Pattern of Intercorrelations Among Collective Personality
Dimensions and Goldberg’s (1992) Measure of Other-Rated
Individual Personality
Personality dimension 1 2 3 4 5 deviation.
1. Conscientiousness — .42 .26 .02 .31
2. Agreeableness .90 — .41 .15 .33
3. Openness .79 .83 — .30 .09
4. Extraversion .65 .61 .63 — .08
5. Emotional Stability .56 .56 .39 .28 —
Note. Correlations below the diagonal are from the present study (N ⫽
68). Correlations above the diagonal are from Goldberg (1992, Table 5, p.
37; like other’s ratings, raw score).
as the intercorrelations of the five dimensions when rated by “liked others,”
as reported in Goldberg (1992, Table 5, p. 37).
Although it is interesting to view the different patterns of intercorrela-
tion, it is difficult to gain an appreciation for the overall pattern of
relationships among the dimensions across our assessment and Goldberg’s.
Thus, to provide such a comparison, we created two vectors that summa-
rize the overall pattern of relationships observed in Table 1. Specifically,
we created a data set with two variables (the present data and Goldberg’s
data) in which each observation in the data set represented a bivariate
relationship. For example, Observation 1 in the data set consisted of the
Conscientiousness–Agreeableness relationship. This approach continued
until the correlations among each of the 10 relationships were entered. We
then estimated the correlation between these two summary variables. The
correlation was significant (r ⫽ .67, p ⬍ .05), indicating that overall
pattern of interrelationships among the five dimensions were, at least to
some extent, similar. Obviously, this investigation does not address the
overall differences in magnitude of the relationships (mean difference), but
it does indicate similarity in the pattern of relationships. For example, the
Conscientiousness–Agreeableness relationship is the strongest in both data
sets, and the Emotional Stability–Extraversion relationship is the weakest
in both data sets.
In addition to investigating reliability, aggregation evidence, and the
pattern of intercorrelations, we also conducted a confirmatory factor anal-
ysis of our measure of collective personality at the store level (i.e., N ⫽
68). Two composite indicators were created for each of the five dimensions
(using the single-factor approach discussed and evaluated by Landis, Beal,
and Tesluk, 2000), and then a five-factor model was estimated at the store
level of analysis. This model provided acceptable fit to the data, ␹2(25) ⫽
36.49, ns; normed fit index ⫽ .95; nonnormed fit index ⫽ .97; comparative
fit index ⫽ .99; incremental fit index ⫽ .99; root-mean-square error of
approximation ⫽ .08. In this latent variable model, Conscientiousness and
Agreeableness exhibited a very high correlation. Therefore, we tested the
fit of the five-factor model with a four-factor model in which Conscien-
tiousness and Agreeableness were merged into a single factor. The fit of the
four-factor model was not significantly different than the fit of the five-
factor model, ⌬␹2(4) ⫽ 5.19, ns. A three-factor model, merging the next
two highest correlated factors (i.e., merging Openness with the combined
Conscientiousness/Agreeableness factor), produced significantly worse fit
to the data, ⌬␹2(3) ⫽ 10.77, p ⬍ .05. Given these results, we merged our
measures of Conscientiousness and Agreeableness for all analyses in which
these two variables were investigated simultaneously (e.g., regression
analysis of store performance onto collective personality).
Unit performance. Store profitability (sales revenue minus labor costs,
food costs, and delivery costs) assessed weekly for 7 weeks following the
administration of the survey was used as the measure of unit performance.
In keeping with our hypotheses, we created overall measures of perfor-
mance by computing the average profitability across the 7 weeks as well as
the variability in profitability over the same time period. To index the
variability in profits, we could use either the standard deviation or the
variance in profitability over the 7 weeks. Inspection of the two distribu-
tions revealed that the standard deviation was more normally distributed. In
addition, other recent research investigating the variance in measures as a
dependent variable has also used the standard deviation (e.g., Klein, Conn,
Smith, & Sorra, 2001; Schneider, Salvaggio, & Subirats, 2002). Thus, we
chose to index the variability in profitability over time using the standard
Control variables. For a number of our hypotheses, it was important to
control for the overall activity level of the store. For example, in our
hypotheses predicting the variance in performance over time, it is impor-
tant to control for the fluctuating inputs into the store (i.e., because variance
in these inputs directly impacts variability in profits). Therefore, we ob-
tained measures of the number of orders received per week for each store
as well as the average ticket price of these orders. Given our interest in both
the level of and variance in performance, we computed the following
control variables for the same 7-week period: (a) average number of orders,
 COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 515

(b) the standard deviation in orders, (c) the average ticket price, and (d)

Note. Values on the diagonal represent group-level internal consistency reliability estimates. Sample N size ⫽ 68. Store profit is expressed in 1,000s (store profit/1,000); profit variability is expressed
15

—
standard deviation in ticket price.

.33
14

—
Results

⫺.39
.12
13

—
Table 2 displays the means, standard deviations, and intercor-

.61**
⫺.40**
relations of the variables included in the study. Although not

⫺.08
12

—
hypothesized, but certainly expected, the control variables were

in 100s (profit standard deviation/100); number of orders is expressed in 100s (number of orders/100); and order variability is expressed in 10s (order standard deviation/10).
significantly related to store performance. For example, the num-
ber of orders was highly correlated with store profit (r ⫽ .88) and

.37**
.69**
significantly correlated with profit variability (r ⫽ .37). Similarly,

⫺.01
.22
11

—
order variability was significantly correlated with both store profit
(r ⫽ .56) and profit variability (r ⫽ .69). Given these relationships,

.42**
.88**
.56**
we controlled for the number of orders and order variability, as

⫺.08
⫺.04
10

—
well as for the average ticket price and the variability of ticket
price, when we investigated relationships with store performance.

⫺.38**
Our first set of hypotheses focused on the relationship between

.96
⫺.19

⫺.13
⫺.22
.00
⫺.19
9
leadership and various dimensions of collective personality. There-
fore, we tested each hypothesis using hierarchical regression, with

.57**
⫺.28*
which we first regressed the outcome variable of interest onto our

.81

⫺.22
⫺.18
⫺.22
⫺.03
⫺.17
8
four control variables (i.e., number of orders, order variability,
average ticket price, and ticket price variability). We then entered

.64**
all three dimensions of leadership (in order to account for the

.28*
.76

⫺.19
⫺.19
⫺.13
⫺.21
.00
⫺.05
7
intercorrelation among the three types of leadership). The results
of this analysis can be found in Table 3.

.63**
.39**
.83**

⫺.32**
With respect to transformational leadership, we found a signif-

⫺.28*
.84

⫺.11

⫺.11
⫺.23
.06
6
icant relationship between transformational leadership and collec-
tive Openness (␤ ⫽ .53, p ⬍ .01; Hypothesis 1a), Agreeableness
(␤ ⫽ .43, p ⬍ .01; Hypothesis 1b), Extraversion (␤ ⫽ .36, p ⬍ .05;

.83**
.61**
.56**
.98**

⫺.40**

⫺.25*
.95

⫺.20

⫺.15

.02
⫺.20
Hypothesis 1c), and Conscientiousness (␤ ⫽ .36, p ⬍ .01; Hy-
5

pothesis 1d). Thus, Hypotheses 1a–1d were all supported. After

Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of Variables Included in the Study

controlling for the other aspects of leadership, transactional lead-

.90**
.79**
.65**
.56**
.97**

⫺.34**
.90

⫺.17

⫺.08
⫺.17
⫺.02
⫺.16
ership was not significantly related to any of the dimensions of
4

collective personality. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was not supported. In

terms of passive leadership, we found that passive leadership was
⫺.48**
⫺.47**
⫺.35**
⫺.38**
⫺.42**
⫺.48**

.32**
negatively associated with collective Conscientiousness (␤ ⫽
.92

.08
.23
⫺.05
.00

.22
3

⫺.27, p ⬍ .05; Hypothesis 3b), Extraversion (␤ ⫽ ⫺.22, p ⬍ .05,

one-tailed; Hypothesis 3c), and Emotional Stability (␤ ⫽ ⫺.39,
.46**
.45**
.38**

.47**

p ⬍ .05, Hypothesis 3d). Passive leadership was not significantly

.28*
.92
⫺.22

⫺.03

.14
.02
.18
.17
⫺.04
⫺.08
2

related to Openness (␤ ⫽ ⫺.09, ns; Hypothesis 3a). Thus, Hy-

potheses 3b–3d were supported, whereas Hypothesis 3a was not.
.68**
⫺.44**
.58**
.60**
.56**
.45**

.60**

Although not hypothesized, passive leadership was significantly

.96

.17

.11
⫺.03
.11
.13
⫺.06
⫺.04
1

and negatively related to collective Agreeableness (␤ ⫽ ⫺.23, p ⬍

.05). All of these relationships were in the hypothesized direction
0.48
0.33
0.53
0.41
0.50
0.39
0.31
0.45
0.44
1.93
2.73
2.29
3.36
1.65
0.39
SD

such that transformational leadership was associated with higher

levels of collective Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Openness,
3.58
3.44
2.13
3.74
3.86
3.38
3.68
3.37
3.80
6.35
8.00
8.62
7.80
16.91
0.65

and Extraversion; whereas more passive leadership was associated

M

with less collective Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Extraver-

sion, and Emotional Stability.
Conscientiousness/Agreeableness

Our second set of hypotheses focused on the relationship be-

tween collective personality and both average performance and the
Transformational leadership

variability in collective performance. In addition, we sought to

Transactional leadership

Ticket price variability

investigate the interactions among the dimensions of collective

Average ticket price

* p ⱕ .05. ** p ⱕ .01.
Emotional Stability
Variable

Passive leadership
Conscientiousness

personality. Models 1 and 2 in Table 4 present the results of a

Number of orders
Order variability
Profit variability

hierarchical regression analysis, in which we first entered the

Agreeableness

Extraversion

Store profit

control variables (Model 1) and then entered the various dimen-

Openness

sions of collective personality (Model 2). Note here, as discussed

in the Method section, we merged collective Conscientiousness
Table 2

and Agreeableness into a single measure. In terms of profit, the

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

results first revealed that the control variables accounted for a large
516 HOFMANN AND JONES

Table 3
Relationships Between Leadership Dimensions and Collective Personality

Dependent variable

Emotional
Variable Conscientiousness Agreeableness Openness Extraversion Stability

Model 1: Control variable

Number of orders ⫺.01 ⫺.05 .01 ⫺.02 ⫺.14
Order variability ⫺.18 ⫺.20 ⫺.16 ⫺.25 ⫺.15
Average ticket price ⫺.05 ⫺.02 .10 ⫺.11 ⫺.10
Ticket price variability ⫺.12 ⫺.17 ⫺.29* .02 ⫺.14
⌬R2 .05 .09 .12† .05 .09
Model 2: Add leadership dimension
Number of orders ⫺.04 ⫺.08 ⫺.02 ⫺.03 ⫺.11
Order variability ⫺.22† ⫺.26* ⫺.22† ⫺.28† ⫺.11
Average ticket price .01 .03 .11 ⫺.05 .05
Ticket price variability ⫺.05 ⫺.10 ⫺.24* .07 ⫺.11
Transformational leadership .36** .43** .53** .36* .16
Transactional leadership .20 .15 .03 .05 ⫺.20
Passive leadership ⫺.27* ⫺.23* ⫺.09 ⫺.22† ⫺.39**
⌬R2 .42** .44** .35** .26** .17**

Note. N ⫽ 68. All parameter estimates are standardized.

† p ⱕ .10. * p ⱕ .05. ** p ⱕ .01.

percentage of the variance (90%).1 The next model (Model 2)
revealed no significant relationship between any of the collective
personality dimensions and overall store profit. Therefore, Hy-
potheses 4a– 4d were not supported. In terms of the variability in
profit over time, we did find, as predicted, a significant negative
relationship between collective Conscientiousness/Agreeableness
and performance variability (␤ ⫽ ⫺.44, p ⬍ .05). Contrary to our
predictions, collective Extraversion was marginally, and posi-
tively, related to the variability in performance over time (␤ ⫽ .21,
p ⬍ .10).
To this point, the results indicated that the relationships between
the various leadership dimensions and collective personality were
largely as expected. The main effects we predicted in terms of
performance, however, were not nearly as well supported. One
possibility is that the expected overall main effects were not
observed because of more complicated, multiplicative relation-
ships among the collective Big Five dimensions. This leads to our
investigation of the potential two-way interactions among the
various dimensions of collective personality in their prediction of
performance. In keeping with recommendations by Dunlap and
Kemery (1987), all the collective personality dimensions were
standardized prior to computing the interaction term.
Table 4 depicts the hierarchical regression results for which the
sequential steps in the analysis proceeded as follows: (a) control
variables, (b) main effects, and (c) all possible two-way interac-
tions. The results indicated that there was no significant incremen-
tal prediction by the two-way interactions in terms of overall store
performance. For the variability in store profitability, however, the
two-way interactions accounted for an additional 12% of the
variance in the consistency of performance over time. It should be
noted that, according to McClelland and Judd (1993), an R2 change
of this magnitude is quite substantial when compared with past
research. Specifically, McClelland and Judd (1993) stated, based
on Evans (1985), that moderator effects explaining as little as 1%
of the variance should be considered important.
Of the six interactions investigated, two produced significant
results—namely, Conscientiousness/Agreeableness ⫻ Openness
( p ⬍ .01) and Conscientiousness/Agreeableness ⫻ Extraversion
( p ⬍ .05, one-tailed; Hypothesis 6). In order to investigate the
form of these interactions, we plotted the interaction for values
high and low on each of the interacting variables (i.e., ⫾1 standard
deviation). Figures 1A and 1B graphically display the form of
these interactions. It is important to recall here that low values on
performance variability are desirable. Thus, better performance is
indicated by a lower degree of variability over time.
Focusing first on the predicted interaction, Figure 1A illustrates
that under conditions of high collective Conscientiousness/Agree-
ableness, increasing levels of Extraversion are associated with
1
One could question the degree to which these control variables con-
ceptually overlap with performance. We believe that these control variables
essentially dictate the overall sales revenue of the store, whereas the
effectiveness and the efficiency of the operation of the store impacts the
profit generated from these revenues. Specifically, there are numerous
ways in which leadership and the internal norms and routines of the unit
can impact labor costs, food costs, as well as delivery costs. Thus, we
believe that these are conceptually the correct control variables needed to
equate the units in terms of inputs. That said, the results indicate that these
control variables do account for a large percentage of the variance in
overall profitability (approximately 90%), which brings into question
whether the remaining variance in overall profitability is meaningful. In
order to investigate this, we regressed profit onto our control variables and
saved the residuals from this regression equation. The standard deviation of
these residuals was approximately $640. So, moving from one standard
deviation below the mean to one standard deviation above the mean results
in an increase in almost $1,300 in profit per week. Extrapolating to the
year, this results in $67,600 in profits per store per year. Multiply this per
year difference in overall profit times the 68 stores in the sample, and the
estimate is approximately $4.5 million. Thus, compounding this residual
over time and over stores does result in significant revenue from both a
store and corporate perspective. In terms of the variability in profit over
time (our other dependent variable), these controls account for substantially
less of the variance (50%), which lessens questions regarding the mean-
ingfulness of the remaining variance to be predicted by leadership and
collective personality.
 COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY 517

Table 4 hierarchical linear regression in which we entered the control

Relationships Between Collective Personality and Store variables in the first step, followed by the three leadership vari-
Performance ables in the second step. Our measures of collective personality
and their interactions were entered in the third step. A mediated
Dependent variable relationship would be supported if (a) the block of leadership
Variable Store profit Profit variability
variables was significant in Step 2, (b) the leadership variables
were nonsignificant after entering the collective personality vari-
Model 1: Control variable ables in Step 3, and (c) the collective personality variables were
Number of orders .94** .01 significantly related to the outcome when entered in Step 3
Order variability .16** .80**
(Kenny, Kashy, & Bolger, 1998). Similar to the lack of significant
Average ticket price .40** .30**
Ticket price variability ⫺.13** .02 findings in Table 4 regarding overall profitability, the test of the
⌬R2 .90** .55** full model also revealed nonsignificant results for the block of
Model 2: Add collective leadership variables (⌬R2 ⫽ .01), F(3, 60) ⫽ 1.39, ns, in Step 2
personality dimension and nonsignificant results for the collective personality variables
Number of orders .92** .02
Order variability .14* .79** as well (⌬R2 ⫽ .02), F(10, 50) ⫽ 1.08, ns. In terms of profit
Average ticket price .38** .32** variability, the results of Step 2 indicated that our leadership
Ticket price variability ⫺.12* ⫺.03 variables were not significantly related to the variability in profit
Conscientiousness/Agreeableness ⫺.08 ⫺.44* over time (⌬R2 ⫽ .03), F(3, 60) ⫽ 1.21, ns. Entering the collective
Openness .09 .01
personality dimensions and their interactions in Step 3 did produce
Extraversion ⫺.03 .21†
Emotional Stability ⫺.08 .15 significant results (⌬R2 ⫽ .17), F(10, 50) ⫽ 3.50, p ⬍ .01. Thus,
⌬R2 .01 .08* although the results for the variability in profitability do not meet
Model 3: Add two-way interaction all the traditional requirements for mediation— because of the lack
Number of orders .93** .12 of a significant relationship between leadership and profit variabil-
Order variability .13* .75**
Average ticket price .37** .34** ity—the results presented in Tables 3 and 4 do indicate that
Ticket price variability ⫺.13* ⫺.13 leadership is significantly related to collective personality and that
Conscientiousness/Agreeableness ⫺.09 ⫺.36* collective personality is significantly related to profit variability,
Openness .09 ⫺.19 suggesting an indirect effect from leadership to collective person-
Extraversion ⫺.04 .06
ality and from collective personality to performance.
Emotional Stability ⫺.08 .20*
Conscientiousness/Agreeableness
⫻ Openness .08 .60** Discussion
Conscientiousness/Agreeableness
⫻ Extraversion ⫺.04 ⫺.42† Although behavioral regularities occurring at the collective level
Conscientiousness/Agreeableness have been occasionally discussed in terms similar to those used in
⫻ Emotional Stability ⫺.12 ⫺.04
Openness ⫻ Extraversion ⫺.05 .07
Openness ⫻ Emotional Stability ⫺.02 ⫺.24
Extraversion ⫻ Emotional
Stability .20 .17
⌬R2 .01 .12**

Note. N ⫽ 68. All parameters are standardized.

† p ⱕ .05 (one-tailed). * p ⱕ .05. ** p ⱕ .01.

more consistent performance over time (i.e., lower performance

variability). Under conditions of low collective Conscientiousness/
Agreeableness, increasing levels of Extraversion are associated
with less consistency in performance over time.
Now, turning to the interaction that we did not predict, Figure
1B depicts the two-way interaction between Conscientiousness/
Agreeableness and Openness. Inspection of Figure 1B reveals that
under conditions of high collective Conscientiousness/Agreeable-
ness, increasing levels of Openness lead to less consistency of
performance over time. Alternatively, under conditions of less
collective Conscientiousness/Agreeableness, Openness has a neg-
ligible impact on the consistency of performance over time.
As noted at the end of the introduction, our set of hypotheses
predicting a relationship between leadership and collective person-
ality and a relationship between collective personality and perfor-
mance implied an overall model, with collective personality me- Figure 1. A: Two-way interaction between Conscientiousness/
diating the relationship between leadership and collective Agreeableness (Con/Agree) and Extraversion. B: Two-way interaction
performance. In order to test this full model, we conducted a between Conscientiousness/Agreeableness and Openness.
518 HOFMANN AND JONES
the Big Five dimensions of personality (Stewart, 2003), there has
been no systematic attempt to apply the Big Five dimensions to a
higher level of analysis. Given this fact—and given the recent calls
for the consideration of personality at higher levels of analysis
(Smith & Schneider, 2004)—we sought to investigate the degree to
which the Big Five dimensions of personality could be applied to
the collective level. We also sought to investigate the relationships
between collective personality and both leadership and perfor-
mance. In particular, by viewing behavioral regularities at both
levels as functionally isomorphic, we used a referent-shift compo-
sitional model (Chan, 1998) in an effort to apply the Big Five
dimensions of personality to a higher level of analysis. Overall, we
found that at the collective level, there was within-unit agreement
and between-unit differences in terms of Big Five behavioral
regularities. In addition, transformational, transactional, and pas-
sive leadership significantly predicted various aspects of this col-
lective personality, and collective personality was significantly
related to collective performance variability over time. Finally, in
addition to these results, we also found that several dimensions of
collective personality interacted in their prediction of performance.
Leadership and Collective Personality
Our results were largely supportive of our hypotheses, relating
transformational, transactional, and passive leadership to collec-
tive personality. Specifically, we found that transformational lead-
ership was positively related to collective Openness, Agreeable-
ness, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness— even after controlling
for store activity and other leadership approaches (transactional
and passive). Several aspects of these relationships are consistent
with the underlying theory of transformational leadership (Bass,
1985; Burns, 1978). For example, one aspect of transformational
leadership is the intellectual stimulation of followers. The intel-
lectual stimulation, and the norms and expectations that it creates
within the collective, should result in behavioral regularities con-
sistent with descriptions such as innovative, intellectual, imagina-
tive, and creative. Similarly, the individual consideration exhibited
by transformational leaders should help create behavioral regular-
ities that are agreeable, helpful, considerate, pleasant, and cooper-
ative. In fact, Avolio and Bass (1995) discussed how the
individual-consideration aspect of transformational leadership can
cascade throughout the organization and result in increased levels
of helping, cooperation, and development among employees. Our
results are entirely consistent with these discussions.
Similar to results for Openness and Agreeableness, the inspira-
tional vision of transformational leaders—and the clear expecta-
tions that such a vision sends—should serve to increase subordi-
nate’s motivation and effort levels. Over time, shared norms under
these conditions should result in high collective Conscientiousness
(e.g., conscientious, efficient, and systematic behaviors) and Ex-
traversion or surgency (e.g., active, energetic, and assertive behav-
iors). In addition to these relationships with transformational lead-
ership, we also found that passive leadership largely had the
opposite relationships with collective personality. Specifically,
passive leadership was negatively related to collective Conscien-
tiousness, Agreeableness, Emotional Stability, and Extraversion.
Collective Personality and Performance
Moving beyond these findings that link leadership and collec-
tive personality, we also found several relationships between col-
lective personality and the variability in performance. In terms of
main effects, collective Conscientiousness/Agreeableness was sig-
nificantly related to increased consistency in performance over
time. This relationship was observed even after controlling for the
activity level (i.e., inputs) of the store. In other words, stores that
have a highly conscientious and agreeable collective personality
have a more consistent pattern of profitability over time when
compared with stores with less collectively conscientious and
agreeable personalities—and this holds even after statistically
equating these stores on their inputs. Specifically, this relationship
holds after controlling for the number of orders, the average order
size, as well as for the variability in these variables.
These relationships between collective personality and perfor-
mance consistency over time provide empirical evidence bolster-
ing discussions regarding the nature of social control in organiza-
tions (e.g., Barker, 1993; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1996). As noted
earlier, at the micro (team/group) level, behavioral regularities are
often discussed in terms of norms and/or habitual routines. Refer-
ring to Feldman’s definition of norms provides a clue as to how
behavioral regularities emerge. Specifically, D. C. Feldman (1984)
discussed norms in terms of informal rules that “regulate and
regularize” behavior. One key aspect of this definition, and one of
the defining features of norms, is the notion of social control (see
also Barker, 1993; Hackman, 1992; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1996).
In other words, the process through which behavioral regularities
emerge within collectives is through the development of norms
and through the receipt of social rewards and punishments in
response to norm-consistent (or inconsistent) behaviors. Norms,
then, help to provide the informal and agreed-upon rules for
behavior, and the associated social control helps to regularize
behavior and keep it consistent with these norms. Obviously, when
norms and their associated social rewards/punishments create be-
havioral regularities that involve performing one’s own role and
helping others perform their roles, the result should be a collective
that performs more reliably and that exhibits reduced variability in
performance over time.
In addition to the linear relationship between collective person-
ality and performance variability over time, we also found several
interactions between various dimensions of collective personality.
One of these interactions—namely, the one between collective
Conscientiousness/Agreeableness and Extraversion—replicated
the recently observed interaction between individual-level Consci-
entiousness and Extraversion (Witt, 2002). Figure 1A shows that
the most effective performance (lowest variability in performance)
occurred in the presence of high Conscientiousness/Agreeableness
and high Extraversion. Our theoretical interpretation of this rela-
tionship is that the extra communication and activity level associ-
ated with Extraversion is quite beneficial when individuals are
focused on their work and are cooperative. In other words, in the
context of a norm reinforcing a focus on the task at hand (Con-
scientiousness) and helpfulness (Agreeableness), increasing levels
of collective Extraversion (e.g., being active, bold, assertive, talk-
ative) can be beneficial. In the absence of this collective Consci-
entiousness/Agreeableness, increasing levels of activity and com-
munication may just distract the collective from the task at hand
and, as a result, lead to the detrimental increase in variability in
performance over time.
We also observed an interaction between Conscientiousness/
Agreeableness and Openness. For this interaction, the interpreta-
tion is less intuitive. The most consistent (i.e., best) performance
 COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY
occurred in the presence of high Conscientiousness/Agreeableness
and low Openness (intellect). Stated differently, in the context of
high collective Conscientiousness/Agreeableness, shared norms
and expectations surrounding things like being innovative, intel-
lectual, and creative actually increased the variability in perfor-
mance over time. These relationships, however, need to be viewed
within the context of the present study. Specifically, this research
took place in a highly routinized and standardized environment in
which many of the policies and procedures identify the best and
most cost-effective way to produce the product (e.g., using portion
control cups, scales, and the like). Perhaps in this kind of highly
standardized production environment, “thinking outside of the
box” to design new and creative production processes only results
in processes that are less efficient and, as a result, more variable
over time. Clearly, these results and the associated theoretical
interpretations need to be investigated in future research involving
different types of production processes.
In contrast to the significant relationship between collective
personality and variability in performance over time, there was no
significant relationship between collective personality and overall
performance. We suggest that these results should be viewed in
light of the context of the present study (i.e., one characterized by
a very standardized and routine production process with a very
limited range of products produced). Perhaps in this type of envi-
ronment, the real estate adage of “location, location, location”
holds, such that the most important factor in terms of overall
performance is finding a store location sufficient to generate a high
number of sizable orders.
Relationship to Other Research on Personality in
Collectives
There has been a great deal of research investigating how
individual personality impacts collective (in this case team) per-
formance (Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998; Barry &
Stewart, 1997; Neuman, Wagner, & Christiansen, 1999). The
underlying theoretical model of this research is that the individual
behavioral tendencies described by one’s personality influence the
types of behaviors enacted within the collective. This impacts the
degree to which various roles are fulfilled within the collective
and, therefore, overall performance. For example, Barry and Stew-
art (1997) described how the individual personality traits of con-
scientiousness and extraversion would impact the propensity of
individuals to make effective task and socioemotional inputs,
respectively.
We believe that our approach to collective personality is com-
plementary to research investigating the collection of individual
personalities within teams (Hofmann & Jones, 2004). In one
respect, the impact of individual personality versus collective
personality on collective performance could be viewed as alterna-
tive pathways each influencing the same ultimate outcome. Cer-
tainly, the individually based personality research shows that there
is a connection between the collection of individual personalities
within the team and team performance. Individual personality
influences the degree to which individuals are likely to engage in
certain behaviors and fulfill certain roles. But, these individual
tendencies, when viewed within a team context, will also be
influenced by the social environment in the collective (e.g., norms)
that are themselves influenced by both individual factors (person-
ality) as well as contextual factors (leadership).
519
Thus, the findings of our research, when coupled with other
research focusing on individual personality within team contexts,
should be viewed as part of an integrated model. At the center of
this model are the shared norms and expectations that, through
social control, result in collective behavioral regularities. The
antecedents of this ongoing pattern of behavioral regularities
within the collective will consist of not only individual personality
but also other contextual factors such as leadership, task structure,
incentive systems, and other human resource management pro-
cesses. Thus, extant research investigating the influence of indi-
vidual personality on collective performance has investigated one
“leg” of this model—namely, the connection between individual
personality, individual behavior manifestations within the group,
and performance. The present work, alternatively, investigated a
second “leg” of the model—namely, the connection between con-
textual factors (leadership), collective behavioral manifestations
within the group, and performance. Clearly, there is a need, both
theoretically and empirically, to integrate these different ap-
proaches when investigating personality within collectives. Such
an integration will allow researchers to gain a more complete
understanding of how personality (at various levels) impacts col-
lective performance as well as the behavioral regularities occurring
in collectives.
Potential Limitations
Obviously, these results must be considered in light of the
potential limitations of the present study. First and foremost, it is
important to recognize that our dimensions of collective person-
ality exhibited higher intercorrelations than typically observed at
the individual level (cf. Goldberg, 1992). Our supplementary anal-
ysis of Table 1, however, demonstrated that the overall pattern of
relationships among the various dimensions of our collective mea-
sure of the Big Five and the results presented in Goldberg (1992)
were similar (e.g., the largest relationship that we found was also
the largest relationship that Goldberg reported).
These intercorrelations also raise questions about the generaliz-
ability of the taxonomy and the factor structure. In terms of
generalizability, we believe that it would be useful in future
research to supplement a referent-shift approach to measuring the
Big Five dimensions of collective personality with more qualita-
tive approaches. Approaches such as free-recall and open-ended
interviews investigating the language that groups use to describe
their own collective routines are two potential options. These latter
approaches could be used to identify the degree to which the Big
Five dimensions adequately capture the construct “space” of the
behavioral regularities occurring at the collective level. The sug-
gestion here is to investigate more thoroughly the way in which
groups describe their own (or other group’s) collective routines to
determine the degree to which the Big Five dimensions capture
these descriptions. Specifically, the methodology used in the
present study was designed to apply individual descriptions to the
collective level through a referent-shift composition model. Future
research should supplement this by attempting to look at the way
in which groups describe their own collective routines in order to
ascertain the degree to which the application of the individual-
based Big Five dimensions captures these descriptions emerging
when starting the investigation at the collective level. Although it
seems clear that collectives have been, and can be, described using
the Big Five dimensions, it is important to investigate the degree
520 HOFMANN AND JONES
to which these dimensions capture the totality of the construct of
collective routines.
In terms of factor structure, the relatively high intercorrelations
need to be viewed in light of what our survey asked unit employees
to rate. In particular, we asked them to describe the character of
their overall unit—we did not ask them to rate their individual
personalities. Thus, one must consider whether expectations and
norms that exhibit high levels of any one of the dimensions of the
Big Five would also seem likely to exhibit high levels of another
dimension. In other words, effective teamwork requires both the
fulfillment of one’s own role as well as coordination with others in
the store (Campion et al., 1993; Hofmann & Stetzer, 1996). In light
of this, we would argue that it is not surprising that collective
Conscientiousness and Agreeableness were highly intercorrelated,
because they are both indicative of behavioral regularities for
which the shared norms and expectations emphasize effective
group functioning. Clearly, future work on collective personality
will need to investigate whether these higher intercorrelations are
a function of our particular sample or whether such correlations
should be an expected aspect of collective personality.
Conclusions and Contributions
These potential limitations notwithstanding, we believe that the
present study makes several significant contributions to the study
of personality, leadership, and collective performance. First, there
have been a number of recent calls for the consideration of per-
sonality at higher levels of analysis (Smith & Schneider, 2004). To
our knowledge, this study is the first attempt to both justify the
notion of collective personality theoretically and to test it system-
atically. Therefore, we believe that the theoretical arguments re-
garding the functional isomorphism of behavioral regularities
across levels, as well as the empirical relationships investigated,
begin to explore the nomological network of collective personality
and the role it plays in collective performance.
In addition to the value of our discussion and investigation of
collective personality, we believe another important addition to the
literature is our focus on the absolute level of performance and the
variability in performance over time. There has been little research
investigating how collective constructs and norms impact the
variability in performance over time (see Toquam et al., 1997, for
an exception). Theoretically, the social control aspects associated
with certain collective personalities (e.g., Conscientiousness and
Agreeableness) should increase the consistency and reliability of
performance by ensuring that individuals diligently perform their
own roles as well as work to integrate and coordinate their role
performance with others within the unit. The social control aspect
of collective Conscientiousness should also provide smooth inte-
gration and coordination among the different roles within the
collective. Other collective personalities could forseeably engen-
der opposite outcomes (e.g., a neurotic collective personality;
Brotherton, 1991). Given these examples, and given our results,
we believe that future investigations of collective processes should
critically assess their impact on absolute levels of performance as
well as the consistency of performance over time. It may be that
shared agreement on the goals and objectives of the collective, as
well as their congruence with external demands, will predict the
absolute levels of performance, whereas more process-oriented
behaviors (e.g., Conscientiousness and Agreeableness) will be
more strongly associated with variability in performance.
Overall, we believe that the initial investigation into collective
personality provided by the present study—when combined with
other research investigating individual personality in team set-
tings—will encourage the development of an integrated model
exploring the impact of individual personality, collective person-
ality, and other contextual factors on the behavioral regularities
that emerge and exist within collectives.
References
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at
multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the
diffusion of transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 199 –
218.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the
components of transformational leadership and transactional leadership
using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupa-
tional and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441– 462.
Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in
self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 408 – 437.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimen-
sions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44,
1–26.
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998).
Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and
team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 377–391.
Barry, B., & Stewart, G. L. (1997). Composition, process, and performance
in self-managed groups: The role of personality. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82, 62–78.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations.
New York: Free Press.
Bettenhausen, K. L., & Murnighan, J. K. (1991). The development of an
intragroup norm and the effects of interpersonal and structural chal-
lenges. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 20 –35.
Bliese, P. D. (1998). Group size, ICC values, and group-level correlations:
A simulation. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 355–373.
Brotherton, C. (1991). The onward march of the neurotic organization.
Work & Stress, 5, 71–75.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between
work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing
effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823– 850.
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content
domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition mod-
els. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234 –246.
Chase, R. B., Aquilano, N. J., & Jacobs, F. R. (1998). Production and
operations management: Manufacturing and services (8th ed.). New
York: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
Cohen, S. G., & Denison, D. R. (1990). Flight attendant teams. In J. R.
Hackman (Ed.), Groups that work (and those that don’t): Creating
conditions for effective teamwork (pp. 382–397). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1994). Set like plaster: Evidence for the
stability of adult personality. In T. F. Heatherton & J. Lee (Eds.), Can
personality change? (pp. 21– 40). Washington, DC: American Psycho-
logical Association.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2002). Looking backward: Changes in the
mean levels of personality traits from 80 to 12. In D. Cervone & W.
Mischel (Eds.), Advances in personality science (pp. 219 –237). New
York: Guilford Press.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Davis-Sacks, M. L. (1990). Credit analysis team. In J. R. Hackman (Ed.),
Groups that work (and those that don’t): Creating conditions for effec-
tive teamwork (pp. 126 –145). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
 COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY
Den Hartog, D. N., Van Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L. (1997). Trans-
actional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 19 –34.
Dunlap, W. P., & Kemery, E. R. (1987). Failure to detect moderating
effects: Is multicollinearity the problem? Psychological Bulletin, 102,
418 – 420.
Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated
method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 305–323.
Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms.
Academy of Management Review, 9, 47–53.
Feldman, M. S., & Rafaeli, A. (2002). Organizational routines as sources
of connections and understandings. Journal of Management Studies, 39,
309 –331.
Gersick, C. J. G., & Hackman, J. R. (1990). Habitual routines in task-
performing groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cess, 47, 65–97.
Giddens, A. (1993). New rules of sociological method: A positive critique
of interpretative sociologies (2nd ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford Univer-
sity Press.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five
factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26 – 42.
Guzzo, R. A., & Shea, G. P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup
relations in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. H. Hough (Eds.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp.
269 –313). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations.
In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 199 –267). Palo Alto, CA: Con-
sulting Psychologists Press.
Hofmann, D. A., & Jones, L. M. (2004). Some foundational and guiding
questions for multilevel construct validation. In F. Yammarino & F.
Dansereau (Eds.), Multi-level issues in organizational behavior and
processes (pp. 305–317). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
Hofmann, D. A., & Stetzer, A. (1996). A cross-level investigation of
factors influencing unsafe behaviors and accidents. Personnel Psychol-
ogy, 49, 307–339.
Hofmann, D. A., & Stetzer, A. (1998). The role of safety climate and
communication in accident interpretation: Implications for learning from
negative events. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 644 – 657.
Hogan, R. (1991). Personality and personality measurement. In M. D.
Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organiza-
tional psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 873–919). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, trans-
actional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key
predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 78, 891–902.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group
interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 69, 85–98.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). rwg: An assessment of
within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,
306 –309.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and
transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 751–
765.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in
social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.),
The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 233–265). Boston:
McGraw-Hill.
Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B., Smith, D. B., & Sorra, J. S. (2001). Is everyone
in agreement? An exploration of within-group agreement in employee
perceptions of the work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86, 3–16.
521
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Hults, B. M. (1987). An exploration of climates for
technical updating and performance. Personnel Psychology, 40, 539 –
563.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory
and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent pro-
cesses. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory,
research, and methods in organizations (pp. 3–90). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. E. (2000). A comparison of
approaches to forming composite measures in structural equation mod-
els. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 186 –207.
Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. In W. R. Scott
& J. Blake (Eds.), Annual review of sociology (Vol. 14, pp. 319 –340).
Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness
correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-
analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385–
425.
Masi, R. J., & Cooke, R. A. (2000). Effects of transformational lead-
ership on subordinate motivation, empowering norms and organiza-
tional productivity. The International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, 8, 16 – 47.
McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detect-
ing interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114,
376 –390.
Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The structure and function of
collective constructs: Implications for research and theory development.
Academy of Management Review, 24, 249 –265.
Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic
change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Neuman, G. A., Wagner, S. H., & Christiansen, N. D. (1999). The rela-
tionship between work-team personality composition and the job per-
formance of teams. Group & Organization Management, 24, 28 – 45.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1996). Culture as social control:
Corporations, culture and commitment. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cum-
mings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 157–
200). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Ostroff, C. (1993). Comparing correlations based on individual-level and
aggregated data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 569 –582.
Perrewe, P., & Spector, P. (2002). Personality research in the organiza-
tional sciences. In G. R. Ferris & J. J. Martocchio (Eds.), Research in
personnel and human resources management (Vol. 21, pp. 1– 64). Ox-
ford, England: JAI Press.
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A., & Williams, E. S. (1999). Fairness percep-
tions and trust as mediators for transformational and transactional lead-
ership: A two-sample study. Journal of Management, 25, 897–934.
Podsakoff, P., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational
citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group perfor-
mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 262–270.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transfor-
mational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants
of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizen-
ship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22, 259 –298.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990).
Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in
leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior. Leadership
Quarterly, 1, 107–142.
Roberts, B. W. (1997). Plaster of plasticity: Are adult work experiences
associated with personality change in women? Journal of Personality,
65, 205–232.
Saavedra, R. (1990). Beer sales and delivery teams. In J. R. Hackman
(Ed.), Groups that work (and those that don’t): Creating conditions for
effective teamwork (pp. 361–381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, B., Salvaggio, A. N., & Subirats, M. (2002). Climate strength:
522 HOFMANN AND JONES

A new direction for climate research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
220 –229.
Smith, D. B., & Schneider, B. (2004). Where we’ve been and where we’re
going: Some conclusions regarding personality and organizations. In B.
Schneider & D. B. Smith (Eds.), Personality and organizations (pp.
387– 404). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sorensen, J. B. (2002). The strength of corporate culture and the reliability
of firm performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 70 –91.
Stewart, G. L. (2003). Toward an understanding of the multilevel role of
personality in teams. In M. R. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality
and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations (pp.
183–204). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Stewart, G. L., & Manz, C. C. (1995). Leadership for self-managing work
teams: A typology and integrative model. Human Relations, 48, 747–
770.
Toquam, J. L., Macaulay, J. L., Westra, C. D., Fujita, Y., & Murphy, S. E.
(1997). Assessment of nuclear power plant crew performance variabil-
ity. In M. T. Brannick, E. Salas, & C. Prince (Eds.), Team performance
assessment and measurement: Theory, methods, and applications (pp.
253–287). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.).
Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Witt, L. A. (2002). The interactive effects of extraversion and conscien-
tiousness on performance. Journal of Management, 28, 835– 851.
Yukl, G. (1989). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.

Appendix

Measure of Collective Personality

Instructions: Please rate the accuracy with which each of the following
words describes the atmosphere or character of your store. In other words,
think about the extent to which each of the following words describes the
behavior of the employees working within the store.

Use the following scale:

1 ⫽ To a very small extent
2 ⫽ To a limited extent
3 ⫽ To some extent
4 ⫽ To a considerable extent
5 ⫽ To a great extent
Active4 Unexcitable3
Uncreative⫺5 Selfish⫺1
Relaxed3 Assertive4
Careless⫺2 Bashful⫺4
Efficient2 Unemotional3
Not Envious3 Emotional⫺3
Bold4 Temperamental⫺3
Sloppy⫺2 Talkative4
Innovative5 Steady2
Systematic2 Simple⫺5
Intellectual5 Moody⫺3
Calm3 Reserved⫺4
Imaginative5 Considerate1
Organized2 Timid⫺4
Not Dependable⫺2 Not Kind⫺1
Creative5 Conscientious2
Agreeable1 Pleasant1
Energetic4 Not Adventurous⫺4
Not Organized⫺2 Cold⫺1
Touchy⫺3 Unimaginative⫺5
Helpful1 Complex5
High-Strung⫺3 Shallow⫺5
Unsophisticated⫺5 Cooperative1
Rude⫺1 Introverted⫺4
Inefficient⫺2 Not Cooperative⫺1

Note. 1 ⫽ Agreeableness; 2 ⫽ Conscientiousness; 3 ⫽ Emotional Sta-

bility; 4 ⫽ Extraversion; 5 ⫽ Openness (a minus sign indicates a reverse-
coded item).

Received July 9, 2003

Revision received May 10, 2004
Accepted May 24, 2004 䡲