problem 9 - personality and job performance Flashcards
how to assess job performance?
- objective records of productivity:
- > number of customers served by a cashier
- > number of scientific articles published by a university professor etc
- keep track of counterproductive actions
- > latenesses, days absent etc
- supervisors’/ co-workers’ evaluations
- > rating scale, ranking system
- > more subjective
conscientiousness and job performance
Agreeableness and job performance
- modest positive correlations with performance in customer service jobs
- related to getting along with customers
Extraversion and emotional stability
-modest positive correlations with performance in sales and managerial jobs
does conscientiousness lead to higher levels of income and of occupational status?
- studies suggest yes
- but different correlations were found
counterproductive behavior at work
a person-by-situation interaction
-high honesty-humility -> little engagement in counterproductive behavior
- low -> more counterproductive behavior
- > but only in workplaces that were very political
Proactivity and job performance
- more specific, narrowly defined personality traits could be better indicators of job performance (e.g. proactivity)
- correlated with conscientiousness and extraversion
- proactivity -> tendency to identify opportunities and to act on them, to take the initiative, and to persevere when taking on challenging tasks
- > modestly correlated with productivity levels
Integrity tests
- self-report questionnaires
- > asses potential (or current) employee’s level of honesty and dependability
- > predict tendency to refrain from counterproductive behavior
2 main types of integrity tests
1) overt
- ask to indicate whether he/she has committed various dishonest acts
2) Personality-based
- similar to typical self-report personality inventories
-> higher scores on integrity tests were modestly related to better job performance, with a correlation of about .15
the problem of faking
- study tried to assess extent of faking
- comparing self-report scores of 2 groups of people
- one group: current employees, knew that responses were obtained for researcher and confidential
- other group: job applicants, knew that responses could be used by employer to decide which applicants to hire
->finding: scores of applicants were nearly one standard deviation higher for socially desirable characteristics
are scores of integrity tests meaningful if people lie?
- yes
- > differences among people in their scores are meaningful
- > reflection of their relative! levels of integrity and related traits
methods to reduce faking
- include items that ask about moral lapses that presumable everyone has committed
- time limits on applicants’s responses
- use of items to indicate which of several statements describes one most accurately
- use of non-self-report methods
- proactive and reactive
problems with self -reports (2)
1) dissimulation/ faking/ lying
2) self -insight
2 types of behavior of faking/lying
1) Impression management
- > person attempts to create a good impression by leaving out information, adding untrue information
2) Self´deception
- > person, in their own view answers honestly, but what they say is untrue because they lack self-awareness
Problem of self-insight for faking/lying in self-reports
- what people cannot say about themselves even if they wanted to
- people don’t know certain things about themselves
Problems with observation data
- asking participants to list people who know them well and may be called upon
- > observers have different ‘data bank’ (teacher/employer)
- > observers might not tell the truth
test performance
- maximum performance test (power, time, ability tests)
- typical performance test , more assessed by personality tests (preference, untimed)
- behavioral test (group performance)
Physiological Evidence
- medical checkup
- blood samples and salvia samples
