Each article suggested that cognitive ability is in some way an important predictor of job performance, yet it seems that adverse impact problems often stem from the use of cognitive ability tests when selecting job applicants. How can we develop and utilize information provided by cognitive ability tests so that they better represent those general cognitive abilities necessary to perform either a specific job or job categories in general?
Each of the articles reinforced the importance of clearly defining job performance objectives when establishing that link between a predictor and a criterion measure. However, it seems that organizations often struggle with clearly defining performance objectives in a way that truly represents the job performance domain. How can we help organizations to better define and understand what they are really looking for in “job performance?”
• It is apparent that types of performance (typical, maximal, task, & contextual) is a big deal in determining the criteria to measure performance on a job and to determine what to predict performance on for a selection process. How do we assist and guide organizations to determine what type of performance is best suited for that specific position regarding the overall effectiveness of the organization? In addition, how do we completely consider all organizational variables in our selection process to effectively predict a good fit for the company and position?
Peter Drucker, a highly regarded scholar in the area of management once argued "An employer has no business with a man's personality. Employment is a specific construct calling for specific performance, and for nothing else. Any attempt of an employer to go beyond this is usurpation. It is immoral as well illegal intrusion of privacy. It is abuse of power. An employee owes no 'loyalty', he owes no 'love', and no 'attitudes'-he owes performance and nothing else."
The articles we have read for this week would empirically and theoretically argue against Drucker's position and have shown motivation and personality significantly predict certain aspects of job performance.
Which position do you agree with? Can an organization force employees to have certain attitudes and personality characteristics? Should they be able to test for these sorts of factors? From a selection standpoint, organizations are able to attain vasts amounts of knowledge about candidates (e.g., medical tests, attitude tests, knowledge tests, credit scores and other financial information), beside a complete medical history, is no personal information sacred for organizations?
Campbell (1990) states that performance is a function of ability and motivation. Campbell and Atkinson (1964) cite motivation as being basically a function of directional effort, level of effort or vigor, and persistence of effort over time. Motivation is tricky, however, because it can be both increased and decreased by monitoring and by external rewards depending on whether you are looking at intrinsic or extrinsic motivation. As I-O psychologists, we are fairly good at measuring ability, but how can motivation be measured, especially if what one really wants to encourage and evaluate is intrinsic motivation?
Perhaps, Shane, this is why Peter Drucker thought organizations ought not muck around with personality (although, I think even Drucker was concerned with conscientiousness) and attitudes. They are personal and complex and very difficult to measure. I do think Drucker supported the idea of understanding atitudes in an effort to create a humane and just work environment, because he definitely believed in building successful organizations for the long term versus focusing on short-term profits. My reading of Drucker is that he believed organizations owe their employees fair and just policies and work environments and should be concerned about employees' perceptions of how they are being treated. However, the employees, according to Drucker, do not owe the organization anything beyond performing the job they were hired to do. I think owe is the operative word, here. Of course, OCBs are nice, but, from Drucker's perspective, not in any way obligatory. I rather think this perspective will encourage OCBs more than creating an expectation for their existence. What do you think?
The operational measure of task performance used in Hattrup et al.'s empirical study is a measure of outcomes of work-related behavior (sales) rather than behaviors themselves. Viswesvaran and Ones makes a distinction between job performance defined in terms of behaviors or outcomes. Most performance dimensions we’ve been exposed to in the literature reviews in these articles seem to focus on behaviors. Is this an issue we should be attentive to? Why?
@Shay. Overall I think I agree with you and your interpretation of Drucker. However, I just wonder what he would think about testing for personality dimensions for selection purposes. While some jobs may be best handled by a certain type of personality, I believe it is unfair for the organization to arbitrarily not consider a candidate because of a personality measure score. The focus should be on the job performance and less about HOW the job gets done (assuming the job gets done without detriment to the organization or co-workers).
Good discussion Shay and Shane. It seems like motivation would be very difficult to measure especially because it seems like applicants would have a good feeling of the way the are "supposed to" answer. they would be especially motivated to answer "the right way" because they want the job they are apply for.
Also in line with what Shane is saying, do you think that measuring personality factor is just going to cause information overload? Also, It seems like everyone has there own opinion of what personality factors are good for each job, most of the time these theories are only based on opinion. It only seems ok to me if they are actully based in research, which I don't think most of the time it would be.
There seems to be a lot that we still do not know about performance appraisal, almost to the extent that it’s a controversial tool that lack usefulness. Would you consider yourself more optimistic or pessimistic when it comes to the use of performance appraisal?
Each article suggested that cognitive ability is in some way an important predictor of job performance, yet it seems that adverse impact problems often stem from the use of cognitive ability tests when selecting job applicants. How can we develop and utilize information provided by cognitive ability tests so that they better represent those general cognitive abilities necessary to perform either a specific job or job categories in general?
ReplyDeleteEach of the articles reinforced the importance of clearly defining job performance objectives when establishing that link between a predictor and a criterion measure. However, it seems that organizations often struggle with clearly defining performance objectives in a way that truly represents the job performance domain. How can we help organizations to better define and understand what they are really looking for in “job performance?”
ReplyDelete• It is apparent that types of performance (typical, maximal, task, & contextual) is a big deal in determining the criteria to measure performance on a job and to determine what to predict performance on for a selection process. How do we assist and guide organizations to determine what type of performance is best suited for that specific position regarding the overall effectiveness of the organization? In addition, how do we completely consider all organizational variables in our selection process to effectively predict a good fit for the company and position?
ReplyDeleteFrom a reading in Motivation:
ReplyDeletePeter Drucker, a highly regarded scholar in the area of management once argued "An employer has no business with a man's personality. Employment is a specific construct calling for specific performance, and for nothing else. Any attempt of an employer to go beyond this is usurpation. It is immoral as well illegal intrusion of privacy. It is abuse of power. An employee owes no 'loyalty', he owes no 'love', and no 'attitudes'-he owes performance and nothing else."
The articles we have read for this week would empirically and theoretically argue against Drucker's position and have shown motivation and personality significantly predict certain aspects of job performance.
Which position do you agree with? Can an organization force employees to have certain attitudes and personality characteristics? Should they be able to test for these sorts of factors? From a selection standpoint, organizations are able to attain vasts amounts of knowledge about candidates (e.g., medical tests, attitude tests, knowledge tests, credit scores and other financial information), beside a complete medical history, is no personal information sacred for organizations?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCampbell (1990) states that performance is a function of ability and motivation. Campbell and Atkinson (1964) cite motivation as being basically a function of directional effort, level of effort or vigor, and persistence of effort over time. Motivation is tricky, however, because it can be both increased and decreased by monitoring and by external rewards depending on whether you are looking at intrinsic or extrinsic motivation. As I-O psychologists, we are fairly good at measuring ability, but how can motivation be measured, especially if what one really wants to encourage and evaluate is intrinsic motivation?
ReplyDeletePerhaps, Shane, this is why Peter Drucker thought organizations ought not muck around with personality (although, I think even Drucker was concerned with conscientiousness) and attitudes. They are personal and complex and very difficult to measure. I do think Drucker supported the idea of understanding atitudes in an effort to create a humane and just work environment, because he definitely believed in building successful organizations for the long term versus focusing on short-term profits. My reading of Drucker is that he believed organizations owe their employees fair and just policies and work environments and should be concerned about employees' perceptions of how they are being treated. However, the employees, according to Drucker, do not owe the organization anything beyond performing the job they were hired to do. I think owe is the operative word, here. Of course, OCBs are nice, but, from Drucker's perspective, not in any way obligatory. I rather think this perspective will encourage OCBs more than creating an expectation for their existence. What do you think?
The operational measure of task performance used in Hattrup et al.'s empirical study is a measure of outcomes of work-related behavior (sales) rather than behaviors themselves. Viswesvaran and Ones makes a distinction between job performance defined in terms of behaviors or outcomes. Most performance dimensions we’ve been exposed to in the literature reviews in these articles seem to focus on behaviors. Is this an issue we should be attentive to? Why?
ReplyDelete@Shay. Overall I think I agree with you and your interpretation of Drucker. However, I just wonder what he would think about testing for personality dimensions for selection purposes. While some jobs may be best handled by a certain type of personality, I believe it is unfair for the organization to arbitrarily not consider a candidate because of a personality measure score. The focus should be on the job performance and less about HOW the job gets done (assuming the job gets done without detriment to the organization or co-workers).
ReplyDeleteGood discussion Shay and Shane. It seems like motivation would be very difficult to measure especially because it seems like applicants would have a good feeling of the way the are "supposed to" answer. they would be especially motivated to answer "the right way" because they want the job they are apply for.
ReplyDeleteAlso in line with what Shane is saying, do you think that measuring personality factor is just going to cause information overload? Also, It seems like everyone has there own opinion of what personality factors are good for each job, most of the time these theories are only based on opinion. It only seems ok to me if they are actully based in research, which I don't think most of the time it would be.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be a lot that we still do not know about performance appraisal, almost to the extent that it’s a controversial tool that lack usefulness. Would you consider yourself more optimistic or pessimistic when it comes to the use of performance appraisal?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete