Agricultural Leadership, Education & Communication Department


Date of this Version

Spring 5-2011


A THESIS Presented to the Faculty of The Graduate College at the University of Nebraska In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements For the Degree of Master of Science, Major: Leadership Education, Under the Supervision of Professor John E. Barbuto. Lincoln, Nebraska: May, 2011
Copyright 2011 Michael P. Wilmot


The validity of self-monitoring personality in work and organizational settings was reexamined. Comparative meta-analyses using both random-effects and fixed-effects models were conducted (349 total samples; N = 75,811) to test the relationship between self-monitoring personality and work-related and demographic correlates, as well as the reliability of the self-monitoring measures. Contributions were made to the literatures of self-monitoring and meta-analysis. Self-monitoring: Results indicated that self-monitoring related to a number of relevant organizational outcomes, including job effectiveness and success, leadership, and ingratiation. Some results ran contrary to the prior meta-analysis (Day, Shleicher, Unckless, & Hiller, 2002). Meaningful differences were found between the two major operationalizations of the self-monitoring construct: Snyder (1974) and Gangestad and Snyder (1985) vs. Lennox and Wolfe (1984), especially regarding relationships with demographic correlates (i.e. bias). Separate but complementary research tracks are proposed. Continued research is recommended to better understand the inferences associated with the overlapping and unique characteristics of the two construct operationalizations. Meta-analysis: Results from ten comparative meta-analyses of empirical data (k > 10) indicated that fixed-effects confidence intervals (CIs) underestimated random-effects CIs by 41% on average. Nominal 95% fixed-effects CIs were found to be on average 75% (i.e. p < .25) when compared to random-effects CIs. Implications for future meta-analyses are discussed.

Advisor: John E. Barbuto