The study by Hattrup et al. (1998) reinforces the importance of clearly defining performance objectives (whether task, contextual, or otherwise) when establishing that link between a predictor and a criterion measure. This article suggested that cognitive ability was most important in predicting task performance, while conscientiousness was most important in predicting contextual performance.
How would other personality characteristics (i.e. the remaining Big Five traits) relate to contextual performance? Are there other factors that might predict task performance?
Hattrup et al. (1998) used sales volume as a measure of task performance, and they used absenteeism and tardiness as measures of contextual performance. Yet, Ployhart et al. (2006) suggest that these objective measures of performance have a tendency to be contaminated. Does this limit the validity of Hattrup et al.'s findings?
I find it confusing that conscientiousness was not somewhat correlated to the task performance measure, in this study sales, when cognitive ability is a strong predictor; could be the sample size too though. Consciousness is shown to be related to cognitive ability/IQ. How has research determined this relationship now? Do some personality measures correlate to the objective/task measures?
This was an interesting study that showed a dimension of personality that could be measured to predict contextual indicators of job performance (e.g., absenteeism). Can the use of personality factors for selection and prediction of job performance be taken too far?
If you have two job candidates, one candidate has a master's degree and one has a B.A. but performed much higher than the master's student on some personality scale, would you then choose the B.A. candidate? In other words, does personality trump ability (cognitive or otherwise)? Is it fair to compare the two dimensions?
Hattrup, O,Connell & Wingate (1998) – empirical study in Mexico
The measures for OCB, conscientiousness, and cognitive ability were all written originally in English, translated into Spanish and then back-translated into English to check for accuracy. This is a lot of work. What are the benefits and what are the risks of doing this? What are other challenges U.S. researchers face doing an empirical study like this in another country? What are the advantages?
Do you think a company could show the importance of an employee having a certain personality charchteristic for a job if they were to be taken to court over it. It seems like there is a gray area that would invite legal questioning.
Campbell et al. (1993, 1996) presented eight primary dimensions of performance appraisal and Borman and Motowidlo (1993, 1997) presented two. Do you think that this is almost too parsimonious of a taxonomy such that it is impractical? If so, why?
The study by Hattrup et al. (1998) reinforces the importance of clearly defining performance objectives (whether task, contextual, or otherwise) when establishing that link between a predictor and a criterion measure. This article suggested that cognitive ability was most important in predicting task performance, while conscientiousness was most important in predicting contextual performance.
ReplyDeleteHow would other personality characteristics (i.e. the remaining Big Five traits) relate to contextual performance? Are there other factors that might predict task performance?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHattrup et al. (1998) used sales volume as a measure of task performance, and they used absenteeism and tardiness as measures of contextual performance. Yet, Ployhart et al. (2006) suggest that these objective measures of performance have a tendency to be contaminated. Does this limit the validity of Hattrup et al.'s findings?
ReplyDeleteI find it confusing that conscientiousness was not somewhat correlated to the task performance measure, in this study sales, when cognitive ability is a strong predictor; could be the sample size too though. Consciousness is shown to be related to cognitive ability/IQ. How has research determined this relationship now? Do some personality measures correlate to the objective/task measures?
ReplyDeleteThis was an interesting study that showed a dimension of personality that could be measured to predict contextual indicators of job performance (e.g., absenteeism). Can the use of personality factors for selection and prediction of job performance be taken too far?
ReplyDeleteIf you have two job candidates, one candidate has a master's degree and one has a B.A. but performed much higher than the master's student on some personality scale, would you then choose the B.A. candidate? In other words, does personality trump ability (cognitive or otherwise)? Is it fair to compare the two dimensions?
Hattrup, O,Connell & Wingate (1998) – empirical study in Mexico
ReplyDeleteThe measures for OCB, conscientiousness, and cognitive ability were all written originally in English, translated into Spanish and then back-translated into English to check for accuracy. This is a lot of work. What are the benefits and what are the risks of doing this? What are other challenges U.S. researchers face doing an empirical study like this in another country? What are the advantages?
Do you think a company could show the importance of an employee having a certain personality charchteristic for a job if they were to be taken to court over it. It seems like there is a gray area that would invite legal questioning.
ReplyDeleteCampbell et al. (1993, 1996) presented eight primary dimensions of performance appraisal and Borman and Motowidlo (1993, 1997) presented two. Do you think that this is almost too parsimonious of a taxonomy such that it is impractical? If so, why?
ReplyDelete