Situational Strength As a Means of Conceptualizing Context

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2 (2009), 99–102. Copyright ª 2009 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 1754-9426/09 Situational Strength as a Means of Conceptualizing Context RUSTIN D. MEYER Purdue University REESHAD S. DALAL George Mason University Kanfer (2009) argues that ‘‘context’’ is an course(s) of action (Weiss & Adler, 1984). important consideration in the study of moti- Thus, in strong situations, motivated behaviors vated behavior, but our knowledge of con- are more homogenous than would be textual constructs is immature and in need of predicted on the basis of motivational traits considerable development. We agree and alone. For example, when provided with build on her position by proposing that situ- external incentives to do so, unconscientious ational strength (Hough & Oswald, 2008; employees are as likely as their conscientious Mischel, 1977) has the potential to help peers to remain focused on tasks (Fleeson, conceptualize what Johns (2006) calls ‘‘dis- 2007). It is, therefore, unsurprising that situa- crete context’’ (i.e., the particular task, tional strength is viewed as an important social, and physical variables that influence consideration in person-centric formulations motivation, attitudes, and behavior). The of motivation (Kanfer, Chen, & Pritchard, present article briefly describes situational 2008), a major reason for the disappointingly strength, discusses its operationalization low relationship between personality and and measurement, explores its implications job performance (Murphy & Dzieweczynski, for practice, and describes two research 2005), and the single most important situa- questions that fall within Pasteur’s Quadrant tional force influencing the predictive power (Stokes, 1997). of dispositional variables (Snyder & Ickes, 1985). In other words, situational strength is a lens through which the interplay between Situational Strength the context and the content of motivation ‘‘Strong’’ situations restrict the expression (i.e., two of Kanfer’s ‘‘threeCs’’)can be viewed. and, therefore, criterion-related validity of Although situational strength is a well- nonability personality traits by providing accepted idea and has been used in several information about the most appropriate recent studies, a lack of theoretical and empirical development has forced researchers to use a variety of ad hoc operationaliza- Correspondence concerning this article should be tions of it. Examples include task structure, addressed to Rustin D. Meyer. E-mail: meyer@psych. choice of responses to a problem situation, purdue.edu Address: Department of Psychological Sciences, situational constraints, situational ambiguity/ Purdue University, 703 3rd Street, West Lafayette, IN uncertainty, metafeatures of the Human 47907 Resource Management (HRM) system (e.g., Rustin D. Meyer, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University; Reeshad S. Dalal, George consistently enforced rules), climate strength, Mason University. and transformational leadership (cf. Meyer, 99 100 R.D. Meyer and R.S. Dalal Dalal, & Bonaccio, under review). Thus, a proxy for the goal setting that is naturally although many operationalizations have indi- carried out by conscientious employees vidually been shown to moderate disposition– (Barrick, Mount, & Strauss, 1993), leading behavior relationships (e.g., Barrick & all employees to engage in behavior that Mount, 1993; Beaty, Cleveland, & Murphy, would otherwise have been exhibited pri- 2001), there is little consensus regarding marily by conscientious employees. the optimal structure of situational strength’s Although situational strength is conceptuali- construct space. zed as a moderator of personality–performance An initial effort in this regard was made relationships, its precise role is not yet clear by Meyer et al. (under review), who argued given the aforementioned mediating role of that extant operationalizations of situational motivational states. For example, it is not yet strength can be organized into at least two clear whether situational strength (a) moderates conceptually homogenous dimensions or the relationship between personality and moti- facets: ‘‘constraints’’ (the extent to which an vational states, (b) moderates the relationship individual’s freedom of decision or action is between motivational states and job perfor- limited by outside forces) and ‘‘consequen- mance, and/or (c) has a direct impact on ces’’ (the extent to which decisions or actions motivational states. Nonetheless, certain impli- have significant implications for any person or cations for practice are already apparent. entity). Further, this study meta-analytically demonstrated that both these broad facets Implications for Practice moderate the relationship between conscientiousness and job performance. Although this Many of the organizational forces that affect preliminary structure has promise, additional situational strength operate through formal facets of situational strength—reflecting, for organizational policies. Policies that example, the extent of ‘‘clarity’’ and ‘‘consis- weaken situations include flexible sched- tency’’ in situational cues—may exist. ules, which reduce temporal constraints on employees; telework, which reduces physical and supervisory constraints; and Implications for Motivation Research employee empowerment programs, which Personality traits, which represent a bulwark reduce both constraints and consistency. of Kanfer’s content aspect of motivation, are Policies that strengthen situations, on the frequently conceptualized as relatively other hand, include pay-for-performance distal motivational constructs. This is true programs, which increase clarity and con- regardless of whether personality is concep- sequences and performance-monitoring tualized as motivational traits related to programs, which potentially influence mul- approach and avoidance (e.g., Kanfer & tiple facets of situational strength. As Kanfer Ackerman, 2000) or as the ‘‘Big 5.’’ Because mentions, organizations have begun adopt- the personality–job performance relation- ing many of these policies as a means of ship is widely believed to be mediated by attracting and retaining high-performance motivational states such as self-efficacy, employees. Because these policies share self-set goals (level/difficulty as well as the goal of influencing the context surround- content), and expectancies (cf. Locke & ing motivated behavior, situational strength Latham, 2002), understanding the role of provides a simple, but useful, lens through situational strength in these relationships is which the impact of these policies can be an important task for researchers attempting assessed. to understand and predict motivated behav- These HRM-policy implications suggest ior because situational strength may serve as that research on situational strength can simul- a substitute for these behavioral tendencies taneously enhance ‘‘understanding’’and ‘‘use’’ among unconscientious employees. For (the traditional goals of basic and applied example, adding structure (an instantiation research, respectively)—in other words, that of ‘‘constraints’’) to a given task may serve as such research can exist in Pasteur’s Quadrant Situational strength as context 101 (Stokes, 1997). Two programs of research are Conclusions offered below, by way of example. There is little doubt that context has not been given adequate attention in the organiza- Situational Strength and Pasteur’s tional sciences. There is also little doubt that Quadrant: Two Examples situational strength is an important, though not yet adequately conceptualized, lens One critical program of research involves through which researchers and practitioners the development of a standardized instru- can view discrete organizational context. ment to measure situational strength. Such research would address basic research questions including (a) the dimensionality of References situational strength, (b) the moderating effects of situational strength’s various Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the Big dimensions on relevant relationships, and Five personality dimensions and job performance. (c) situational strength’s specific influence(s) Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 111–118. on motivated behavior’s nomological net- Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. P. (1993). Conscientiousness and performance of sales repre- work. Such research would, however, also sentatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal set- be of great use to practitioners. In particular, ting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 715–722. the new situational strength instrument Beaty, J. C., Cleveland, J. N., & Murphy, K. R. (2001). The relation between personality and contextual perfor- could be used to ascertain the overall level mance in ‘‘strong’’versus ‘‘weak’’situations. Human of situational strength engendered by an Performance, 14, 125–148. organization’s HRM policies and examine Fleeson, W. (2007). Situation-based contingencies underlying trait-content manifestation in behavior. whether they act in concert or in opposition Journal of Personality, 75, 825–862. with regard to situational strength. More- Hough, L. M., & Oswald, F. O. (2008). Personality test- over, inclusion of the situational strength ing and I–O psychology: Asking questions, offering answers, discussing unknowns, and providing direc- instrument into popular job-analytic data- tion. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Per- bases such as O*NET

Load more