Emotional intelligence and individual differences in affective processes underlying task‐contingent conscientiousness

• Author: Nadin Beckmann,Amirali Minbashian,Robert E. Wood
• Date: 01 November 2018
• Published date: 01 November 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2233

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

Emotional intelligence and individual differences in affective

processes underlying task‐contingent conscientiousness

Amirali Minbashian

1

|Nadin Beckmann

2

|Robert E. Wood

3

1

School of Management, UNSW Business

School, UNSW Sydney, NSW, Australia

2

School of Education, Durham University,

Durham, U.K.

3

Australian Graduate School of Management,

UNSW Sydney, NSW, Australia

Correspondence

Amirali Minbashian, School of Management,

UNSW Business School, UNSW Sydney, NSW

2052, Australia.

Email: amiralim@unsw.edu.au

Funding information

Australian Research Council, Grant/Award

Number: Discovery Project (DP0987584)

Summary

Organisational researchers have recently begunto focus on the more dynamic aspects of person-

ality in the workplace. The present study examines individual differences in the affective

processes that underlie one such dynamic construct, task‐contingent conscientiousness. Using

experience samplingdata collected over 3 weeks from 201 managers, we show (a) that individuals

differ substantially from each other in the paths that connect task demand, positive and negative

affect, and conscientious behaviour; (b) that these individual differences cohere to define person

types or classes that represent meaningful differences in the extent to which task‐contingent

conscientiousness is mediated affectively; and (c) that emotional intelligence increases the

likelihood of membership in classes that are characterised by affectively mediated effects.

Theoretical implications of the findings are discussed with reference to the cognitive‐affective

personality system model, research on the consequences of affect in the workpla ce, and the

literature on emotional intelligence. Practical applications are suggested for managers who wish

to use personality assessment for developmental purposes, especially in relation to facilitating

behavioural change.

KEYWORDS

affect, cognitive‐affective personality system, emotionalintelligence, personality dynamics,task‐

contingent conscientiousness

1|INTRODUCTION

Although the study of personality in organisations has traditionally

focused on relatively fixed personality traits such as the Big Five

(e.g., Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001), recent approaches to personal-

ity research have increasingly emphasised the dynamic aspects of

individuals. In a seminal paper, Mischel and Shoda (1995) presented

their cognitive‐affective personality system (CAPS) model, which

proposed that individuals could be characterised not only by their traits

(or typical response tendencies) but also in terms of stable and system-

atic patterns in the way their responses vary across different situations.

Fleeson (2007) showed that this dynamic aspect of personality could be

operationalised as contingent units—regression slopes that assess the

extent to which behavioural, affective, and cognitive responses vary

within a given person as a function of changes in situational character-

istics. Minbashian, Wood, and Beckmann (2010) applied a contingent

approach to the study of conscientiousness at work. They found

significant and stable differences between people in the extent to

which conscientious behaviour is contingent on the demands of tasks

encountered at work, a construct that was labelled task‐contingent

conscientiousness (TCC).

The present paper contributes to this literature by examining

individual differences in the affective processes that underlie TCC.

The paper seeks to make several contributions. First, we derive

and test hypotheses that are key to the viability of the CAPS model

for the study of personality in the workplace; namely, that there are

individual differences in the underlying mediating psychological

processes that link work task demands to behavioural responses,

and that these differences cohere into distinct personality types that

share common patterns in their mediating processes. Second, our

findings help to explicate the TCC construct by clarifying the role

of affect in contributing to individual differences in the construct.

Third, we examine the effect of emotional intelligence

(conceptualised as a knowledge structure) on individual differences

in the mediating processes that underlie TCC. Finally, from a practi-

cal perspective, we illustrate how our findings can be used as input

into interventions that aid individuals to better regulate conscien-

tious behaviour at work.

Received: 30 September 2016 Revised: 30 June 2017 Accepted: 9 August 2017

DOI: 10.1002/job.2233

1182 © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J Organ Behav. 2018;39:1182–1196.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job