natural language and in questionnaires.

natural language and in questionnaires." In Lawrence A. Pervin (ed) Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research: 66-100 modern York: Guilford Press.

John, Oliver P and brant W. Roberts 1993 "Measuring the five-factor pattern on the Adjective Check List." Technical report, Institute of Personality and Social Research. University of California, Berkeley.

John Oliver P and Richard W Robins 1994 "Accuracy and bias in self-perception: Individual differences in self-enhancement and the part of narcissism." Journal of Personality and In the past several years, organizational researchers have engaged in a rather artificial debate about the bulk to which individual differences or dispositions predict work at jobs outcomes such as attitudes and behaviors (eg Davis-Blake and Pfeffer 1989) While the debate is provocative, a careful examination indicates that there may be les substance to this debate than it appears By now, most organizational researchers acknowledge the fundamental importance of situational validitys the existence of stable individual differences, and their interaction as causes of behavior (Wright and Mischel, 1987; Chatman, 1989) The lawsuit lies in questions about the usefulness of measuring dispositions that are sometimes poorly specified and lack reliability and validity, the absence of well-developed theoretical justifications for put togethers for given situations, and the every-day use of cross-sectional research designs that do not permit adequate longitudinal testing of clearly specified hypotheses (eg Weiss and Adler, 1984)

It is clear that poorly designed studies of dispositions exist, still some stable individual differences may predict important attitudes and behavior. Intelligence, or general cognitive ability (GCA), has a protracted well-documented history of research that reliably predicts important organizational issues such as job performance and career succes (eg House, Howard, and Walker, 1992) hunting-dog (1986: 340) reported a review of "hundred of studies showing that general cognitive ability predicts piece of work performance in all jobs." The predictive ability of GCA increases for work at jobss or situations that require increased information processing. This is consistent with Wright and Mischel's (1987) competency-demand hypothesis, which implies that population with more general cognitive ability are likely to perform better in cognitively demanding situations. General cognitive ability predicts performance across do job-works settings. and careers (Gottfredson, 1986; Dreher and Bretz 1991; Schmidt, uniteds and Hunter, 1992).

Personality researchers have largely ceased to be touched with the idea of a clear trait or dispositional approach, however, and widely agree that behavior is a function of the couple individual and situational factors. Kenrick and Funder (1988: 31) reviewed the person-situation debate and conclud that "As with in the greatest degree controversies, the truth finally appears to lie not in the vivid black or white of either of the rarest kind but somewhere in the les striking gray area." Situations may affect folks while people may affect situations and maintain distinctive personal titles across situations (Schneider, 1987).

There are several question s here for organizational researchers. First, intelligence or general cognitive ability is a fabricate that most organizational scholars have not investigated. Instead of building upon the massive evidence for the efficiency of GCA as a predictor of job-related issues researchers have pursued other, les well-defined dispositional institutes (Gerhardt, 1987). This has l a certain experts to raise the obvious question, "If the predominance of the g [general cognitive ability] factor has been apparent to many if not chiefly psychologists ever since mental proofs were invented, why should in like manner much time, energy, and creativity have been invested in the attempt to identify and measure more limited abilities?" (Tyler 1986: 446)

Second one of the earliest models of human performance (eg Heider, 1958) remind ofed an interactional approach, using ability and motivation, of the image called for in recent articles (eg Chatman, 1989) Campbell (1976: 64) observ that in industrial and organizational psychology performance is a function of the interaction between ability and motivation. Pinder (1984) in his review of the motivation literature, made a similar observation and noted that it may be that high horizontals of one component compensate for depressed levels of the other. This general approach is the basis for expectancy gauges of motivation that conceptualize performance as the interaction between ability and effort. Motivation is a person's willingness to employ effort and persist at an activity, while ability is a person's capacity to perform certain tasks. Motivation and ability are the pair necessary, but neither alone may be sufficient for high of the same heights of performance. A highly motivated living body may lack critical abilities for succes while a bodily substance with ability may lack the motivation to succeed