Exam 1 Citations (Week 1-6) Flashcards
Week 2 Job Analysis
“underlying characteristic of a person that results in effective performance on the job” (Klemp, 1980)
Competencies
Sanchez & Levine (2009)
Reference for whole ppt
Brannick, Levine, & Morgeson (2007)
Week 3 Measurements: General
Fields (2002)
where to find measurements?
Mental Measurements Yearbook
&
Publishers
&
3rd Party (e.g. Rocket-Hire)
&
Authors* (Taking the Measure of Work)
Standards for Educational & Psychological Testing (2014).
Sources of validity evidence based on:
Test Content
Response Processes
Internal Structure
Relations to other Variables
Consequences of Testing
Cheung et al. (2003)
Found the Big Five did not replicate perfectly
6, perhaps 7 factors
Ren Qing
Liu et al. (2015) - Agreeableness and Extraversion predicted negotiation success for Americans
Ren Qing, Guanxi, and Face predicted for Chinese samples
Week 4 Selection: General
Standards for Educational & Psychological Testing (1999).
Sources of validity evidence based on:
Test Content
Response Processes
Internal Structure
Relations to other Variables
Consequences of Testing
Cognitive abilities can be defined as hypothetical attributes of individuals that manifest when those individuals performing tasks involve the active manipulation of information.
Top overall predictor of JP 0.40 – 0.50 Hunter & Hunter (1984)
Self-report measures have demonstrated considerable validity with respect to personnel-related decisions (Barrick & Mount, 1991)
Self-report measures such as personality measures and biodata inventories exhibit less adverse impact than do alternative selection devices such as cognitive ability tests (Sackett & Wilk, 1994)
Mischel (1968) heavily criticized the use of personality measures
Said personality didn’t exist
Just a set of labels for similar behaviors
Tett & Gutterman (2000) trait activation theory
Use of FOR
Frame of Reference.
Better Psychometric properties (Schmitt et al. 1995; Bing et al. 2004)
Week 4 Selection: Factor Analysis / Big Five
Study demonstrated that openness to experience was a significant predictor of training performance (Hunter & Hunter, 1984).
Barrick and Mount (1991) found that the personality dimension of conscientiousness had moderate predictive validity (mean corrected R = 0.22) with all job performance criteria across a wide variety of occupational settings.
Barrick and Mount (1996) and Tett et al. (1991) found that the personality construct of agreeableness was a valid predictor of job performance.
Birth of personality factor analysis Birth- Sir Francis Galton (1884)-dictionary words used to describe people.
Cattell reduced the larger (17, 953) list to 16 factors (factor analysis)
Tupes and Christal (1961) credited with the Big Five.
Costa and McCrae developed the NEO-PI which brought attention to the big five.
Guion & Gottier (1965) said that personality tests were useless because they didn’t predict behavior past a .30 ceiling
Predictions & personality. Still criticisms (Morgeson et al. 2007)…
Murphy (2005)
Conscientiousness (C) consistent predictor of job performance (Barrick et al 1991, & 2002; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Tett et al. 1991).
Traits interact
Agreeableness X “C” received higher rating of job performance than those low in agreeableness with a high level of “C” (Witt et al. 2002)
Extraversion – Sales and management
Barrick et al. (1991)
Week 4 Selection: Faking
Several studies have reported minimal effects of faking on criterion-related validity.
Christiansen et al. (1994)
Hough et al. (1990)
Ones et al. (1996)
Mueller-Hanson et al. (2003) suggested Social Desirability scale is not likely to be synonymous with faking
faking research Griffith & Peterson (2008).
Other researchers have found faking to lower criterion-related validity coefficients
Douglas et al. (1996)
Komar et al. (2008)
Zickar, Rosse & Levin, (1996)
Researchers have called for a cessation of faking research because personality is a bad predictor to start with (Morgeson et al., 2004)
Week 4 Selection: Integrity Tests
In the last decade the use of integrity tests has increased drastically (Ones et al., 1993).
Integrity tests are self-report measures that allow the scorer to make inferences about the respondent’s honesty (Murphy, 1993)
There are two broad categories of integrity tests.
Sackett (1989; 2003) classified integrity tests either as overt or personality based.
Overt integrity tests typically contain items related to past illegal behaviors, hypothetical situations related to dishonest behavior, or opinions about illegal activities (Murphy, 1993)
Personality based integrity tests. some researchers (Ones et al., 1993; 1995) assert that both categories of these tests broadly measure the construct of conscientiousness.
A meta-analysis investigating integrity test validates found moderate validities for predicting job performance, with a mean corrected r of 0.41 (Ones et al., 1993).
Week 4 Selection: Interviews
Interview bias. Happens immediately and they are effortless (Krull & Erickson, 1995). Krull and Erickson state that we can attend to other information, but it is not easy to do so, especially when they are under cognitive load.
Hunter and Hunter (1984) performed a meta analysis on various employment predictors and their performance. Relationship between the employment interview and job performance is r = 0.14. However, there are some methodological concerns that may have led to a smaller coefficient. 0.14 coefficient was based on only 10 studies.
Meta analysis wit few studies have a stronger likelihood of being “swamped” by a few influential studies (McDaniel, 1989).
Further examinations of the employment interview reveal a much stronger relationship to job performance (McDaniel et al., 1991; McDaniel et al., 1994).
McDaniel et al. (1994) examine the degree of structure in the employment interview. The authors found a validity of 0.44 for structured interviews.
A structured interview is standardized and it is usually based, in part, on a job analysis (Cascio, 1991).
Research concerning the employment interview painted a bleak picture regarding its ability to predict job performance.
This was especially troubling since the employment interview is the most widely used selection technique (Cascio, 1991)
Week 5 Selection II: General
Executive Selection (Hollenbeck (2009)) Hollenbeck suggest we should focus our selection models on the 3 “C”s
Character, Competence, Competencies
Who is an executive? Silzer (2002) includes general managers, corporate officers, and heads of major organizational units (Often includes “High Potentials”)
Drucker (1985) stated execs ‘‘batting average is no better than .333”
Hogan (2003) ‘‘we know for a fact . . . that perhaps two thirds of the people currently in leadership positions in the Western world will fail; they will be fired, demoted, or kicked upstairs’’
Hogan et al. (2009) estimates of the base rate of managerial failure . . . range from 30 to 67 percent
The task of selecting executives is reserved for executive recruiters and more senior executives (Howard, 2001)
Collins (2001) examined successful companies and their leaders
Suggested that ‘‘successful companies placed greater weight on character attributes than on specific educational background, practical skills, specialized knowledge, or work experience.’’
Day (2009)
Should not be considered a stand-alone decision
Part of a comprehensive succession management process
Talent Management
Succession planning
Viewed as one of the most important issues by top execs
Little research on succession planning
Little formal education on the topic
Internal/External candidate paradox
Firms increasingly hiring externally (external bias), but these candidates have higher failure rates
Internals have advantages
Succession management process has generated a wealth of data on internal candidates
“live fire” exercise or living assessment center
performance in stretch assignments,
a record of developmental activities,
reports from superiors and subordinates (360)
Less than 30% of companies surveyed reported having a formal succession plan (Fegley, 2006)
Title VII as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 has been the principal body of federal legislation in the area of fair employment.
McDonnell Douglas Rule
-Belongs to a protected class
-Applied and was qualified for job
-Were rejected
-Company still sought applicants
Section 106: Section of the law that prohibits the adjustment of test scores on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
