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
Personal History/biography
- birth order
- social class
- religion
- > biodata (social media)
problems: too private, against the law, too time consuming
problems with simple selection model
- select the good, reject the bad candidates for a job
- > assumption of linearity (assumption that more is better) -> but for most jobs you need an optimal amount rather than a maximal account
- > failure to select out (actively seeking out for things that you do not want in the person being assessed
factors contributing to development in this area
- changes in law
- changes in business -> competition, concern with specific assessment-related issues, spotting and managing talent, strengthening leadership
- ideas of gurus (business writers) -> popular books highlight various concepts, issues, and methods
- recommendations of consultants/academic
- labour market shortages
- technological developments (test via computer, recruiting and testing online)
- construct-driven approach: being clear about what one is trying to assess and why
3 things led to the acceptance that personality traits do influence and predict job outcomes
1) growth of meta-analysis allowed cumulation of results across studies
2) Big5 provided framework to organize traits
3) Personality traits are relatively enduring and have genetic origin
intrinsic extrinsic successes
-conscientiousness positively correlated with both
- pros cons in personality testing
- bandwidth fidelity dilemma
- faking and social desirability
- different validities
-main part exam
cognitive and mental ability tests
-IQ is a good predictor for job performance in all domains
problem:
- no real prediction of personality
- IQ test could lead to people feel mistreated or judged unfairly (bc not relevant for the job) -> bad scores
interviews
- only when they are structured and planned you get data you can compare well
-biases (first impression etc)
-
why is assessing people at work important?
cost benefit analysis
job performance and personality traits
- conscientiousness -> strongest predictor
- emotional stability predicts job performance (but less)
work motivation
-emotional stability and conscientiousness -> positive correlations with work motivation
Core self-evaluations (CSE)
- higher order factor representing the fundamental evaluations people make about themselves
- > predicts job performance
- > indicated by self-esteem, locus of control, emotional stability, self-efficacy
job attitudes
- extraversion, conscientiousness and neuroticism -> predictors of job satisfaction
- traits indicating CSE related to job satisfaction
- extraversion -> related to commitment
3 types of job commitment
…
team effectiveness
-each of BIG 5 predicts team effectiveness
reactive vs proactive methods to reduce faking
….
bandwith
- range of measurement for the construct
- > specific trait or more global
broad bandwidth
BIG 5
- > better reliability
- > criterion related validity
con:
-variance can be explained by only looking in detail at the facets
narrow bandwidth
- facets that make up a global construct
- more face validity (subjective, thinking item fits well to measure certain traits)
Bandwidth dilemma
-you have to make a trait-off between gaining high degree of measurement position ( narrow bandwidth) or high degree of predictive power ( broad bandwidth)
predictive criterion respondence
….
different types of validity when evaluation which instruments to use
- incremental validity: is new method gives something new than the previous ones?
- content
- construct
-predictive criterion correspondence
- > choice of predictor should match the nature of the criterion that is focused on
e. g: for this ob you need to be intelligence ( so measure IQ)
incremental validity
-if a measurement provide more info than measures that already exist
criterion / predictive validity
-how well a score can be used to infer an individuals value on some criterion measure
face validity
- the extent to which a test is subjectively viewed as covering the concept it purports to measure
- a test can be said to have face validity if it “looks like” it is going to measure what it is supposed to measure
content validity ?
how well the content of a test samples the knowledge that it’s intended to measure
construct validity
- when measuring a construct not directly observable
- that has been developed to explain behavior on basis of a theory
convergent validity ?
- tests if related construct are actually related
