Task 9 - Personality & Job Performance Flashcards
Assessment of Job Performance
Objective records of productivity
Evaluations of employee performance
-> little difference in results
Conscientiousness & Job Performance
Correlation: 0.2
- > best predictor of overall job performance across occupations for personality traits
- > traits similar to what is demanded at work
- > associated with higher income and occupational status
Agreeableness & Job
Moderate positive correlation with customer service job performance
-> also predicts getting along with co-workers
Extraversion & Job
Modest positive correlation with performance in sales and managerial jobs
-> related to showing leadership
Emotional Stability & Job
Modest positive correlation with performance in sales and managerial jobs
-> better management of work stress
Counterproductive Work Behavior & Personality
Positively correlated with Honesty-Humility
Proactivity & Job Performance
Tendency to identify opportunities and act on them
- > better validity than broader dimensions for some jobs
- > e.g. .25 with performance of real estate agents
Integrity Tests
Self-report questionnaires intended to asess honesty & dependability
- > overt tests
- > personality-based tests
- > .15 correlation of performance on tests with job performance
Overt integrity tests
Asking job applicant openly about committing various dishonest acts (e.g. stealing at work)
-> assesses attitudes and opinions about dishonest acts
Personality-based integrity tests
More subtle than overt tests
Items designed so that responder might not know that employer is attempting to assess integrity
Faking on Assessments
People tend to fake to some extent
- > give themselves benefit of doubt, make themselves seem more socially desirable
- > despite faking, scores still meaningful
Essential Methods of Personality Assessments
Self-Reports Observation Data Test Performance Physiological Evidence Personal History/Biography
Self Reports
- structured/unstructured
- what people report about themselves
- issues: impression management, self-deception
Impression Management
People attempt to create good impression:
- leave out information
- add untrue information
- give answers that are not strictly correct but give good impressions
- > consciously done, common
Self-Deception
When person views own answer honestly but their statements are not true
- > due to lack of self-awareness
- > occurs for good qualities and weaknesses
- > can be solved with Lie scales: assessing what people cannot state about themselves (e.g. items concerning motivation)
Observation Data
What other people say about an individual:
-references
-testimonials
Problems:
-knowledge about individual might be limited
-data sets differ for observers
-difficult to estimate truth of statements
-people choose favorable observer
-hard to get data on weaknesses
Test Performance
Maximum performance: -power -timed -ability Typical performance: -preferences, untimed -> objective and open-ended -> validity and reliability often questionable
Physiological Evidence
Assessments of physiological characteristics
-> e.g. measuring stress levels to test whether people are likely to develop physical/mental disease^^
Personal History/Biography
Biodata;
e.g. where born and educated, social class, ethinicity, religion, GPA etc.
Simple Selection Model
Aim:
-select good candidates
-reject bad candidates
Usually have lists of competencies that are looked for
Problems:
-assumption of linearity: model assumes more is better (quantity over quality)
-does not actively look for things that are unwanted
Assessment methods
Interviews Personal References Biodata Cognitive and Mental Ability Tests Personality Tests
Interviews
structured/unstructured
- structured: interrater reliability: .50 (lower for unstructured
- > better predictive validity (.35) than unstructured (.11)
- only planned structured interviews good data for assessment
Personal References
Free responses or ratings of an observer on another
-> only by individuals known to candidate
Poor reliability:
-Leniency
-idiosyncrasy
-Free-form references (no guidelines)
Biodata
Scoring Biographical Factors
- > past predicting future
- good objectivity, low cost, checkable
- > valid and reliable
- > may be discriminatory, leads to homogeneity,
Cognitive and Mental Ability Tests
Accurately predict job performance across all jobs
- > especially good predictor for complex jobs
- > IQ single best predictor of success in job settings (especially complex, changing managerial jobs)
Personality Tests
Big Five factor model widely accepted
-> Low Neuroticism and high Conscientiousness always best
Pros:
-can be compared easily, explicit & specific results, comprehensive, scientific
Cons:
-faking
Work Motivation & Personality
Direction, intensity and duration of work behavior;
Neuroticism: negatively correlated,
Conscientiousness positively correlated
Job Attitudes (satisfaction) & Personality
Significant predictors of job satisfaction:
- Extraversion (esp. emotional commitment to org)
- Conscientiousness
- Neuroticism
Leadership & Personality
Positive Correlations:
- Extraversion
- Conscientiousness
- Openness
- Emotional Stability
Team effectiveness & Personality
Significantly predicted by each of Big Five
- Conscientiousness: strongest when mean scores taken into account
- Agreeableness strongest when lowest scores taken into accoutn
- Openness: stronger for homogeneous groups
Bandwidth Fidelity Dilemma
Personality measures differ in bandwidth
- > broad bandwidth: global constructs (e.g. Big Five)
- > narrow bandwidth: comprised of facets (more acute)
- > debate about which is more useful
Predictor-Criterion Correspondence
Personality facet measured for job: likely done at appropriate level of precision
- > global constructs predict general outcomes
- > narrow bandwidth more useful when job performance predicted by specific facets
- > narrow also more favored by participants
Correlations between Big Five dimensions and Job performance
Generally low: highest for Conscientiousness with up to .22
- > IQ always better predictor
- > trend: narrow assessments outperform broad ones in predictive value
Strategies against Faking in Personality Assessments
Correcting for faking statistically -> no evidence for validity improvemets Faking Warning -> possible breach of ethics Forced-choice approach -> generally: faking doesn't undermine validity of personality tests
Forced-choice approach
Statements presented in pairs, triplets or quartets; assess different traits but have similar levels of desirability
-> leads to more honesty and are more self-descriptive
