Should organizations select individuals with maximum performance as the job performance standard? Should organizations select individuals with typical performance as the job performance standard? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of using each performance definition?
Klehe & Anderson suggest that performance requires some minimum amount of procedural skills and motivation. Could motivation be used as a valid predictor of job performance? Additionally, Steele-Johnson, Osburn, and Pieper (2000) suggested a need to examine predictors and job performance that is temporally stable. Could motivation be a consistent predictor of job performance over time?
#11 Klehe & Anderson (2007) I liked this article, the design of the study, the clarity of the hypotheses, the methodology, the measures, the analyses, the graphic presentation of the results, the discussion of limitations and the thoughfulness of the suggestions for future research. Impressive.
One takeaway is that the typical-maximum performance distinction is real (having tested Sachett et al.'s model) and greatly impacts selection procedures (if we're not clear what kind of performance we are trying to predict and base selection on maximum performance criteria when we're really trying to predict typical performance on the job). It seems easy to foget this in research and practice. What will help us?
In the Klehe & Anderson (2007) study, motivation was higher during maximum performance than during typical performance; however, intrinsic task enjoyment was more highly correlated with performance in the typical rather than maximum performance condition. Does this point to the possibility that monitoring increased extrinsic but decreased intrinsic motivation? If this is true, would we expect participants to continue to work harder if the time period for the maximum performance condition were increased to closer to the amount of time for which typical performance was measured?
This illustrates the difficulty in if we are measuring typical or maximal (or both) performance for selection. Depending on the job, maximal performances may be more critical to the success of the organization (e.g., firefighters and policeman). How do we determine which is preferred based on a job, not just the criteria? Also, organizational variables (e.g., support, climate, etc.) were not assessed regarding typical performance. I would think this would have more of an effect on typical versus maximal performance. Lastly, I agree with Shay in that seems that internal motivation is related to typical performance whereas maximal performance involves external motivation.
The Klehe and Anderson (2007) findings show motivation and self-efficacy to better predict typical performance as compared maximum performance. Also, cognitive ability or knowledge of the task predicted maximum performance better than typical performance. These findings seem to imply that motivation may be a better predictor for long-term (i.e., typical) performance than cognitive ability. Are there some jobs when we would be more concerned for maximum performance instead of typical performance? One example might be professional sports teams, where the organization is concerned with big plays and big wins? Does that example hold true? Can you think of others?
Motivation was shown to be an important predictor of performance. What are some ways this could be measured to use in selection? Is this something companys could use "off the shelf" or would it need to be personalized to each job?
Typical vs. Maximum performance. Based on their findings, does this mean that performances ratings need to be aligned with the effort standards on the job?
Should organizations select individuals with maximum performance as the job performance standard? Should organizations select individuals with typical performance as the job performance standard? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of using each performance definition?
ReplyDeleteKlehe & Anderson suggest that performance requires some minimum amount of procedural skills and motivation. Could motivation be used as a valid predictor of job performance? Additionally, Steele-Johnson, Osburn, and Pieper (2000) suggested a need to examine predictors and job performance that is temporally stable. Could motivation be a consistent predictor of job performance over time?
ReplyDelete#11 Klehe & Anderson (2007)
ReplyDeleteI liked this article, the design of the study, the clarity of the hypotheses, the methodology, the measures, the analyses, the graphic presentation of the results, the discussion of limitations and the thoughfulness of the suggestions for future research. Impressive.
One takeaway is that the typical-maximum performance distinction is real (having tested Sachett et al.'s model) and greatly impacts selection procedures (if we're not clear what kind of performance we are trying to predict and base selection on maximum performance criteria when we're really trying to predict typical performance on the job). It seems easy to foget this in research and practice. What will help us?
In the Klehe & Anderson (2007) study, motivation was higher during maximum performance than during typical performance; however, intrinsic task enjoyment was more highly correlated with performance in the typical rather than maximum performance condition. Does this point to the possibility that monitoring increased extrinsic but decreased intrinsic motivation? If this is true, would we expect participants to continue to work harder if the time period for the maximum performance condition were increased to closer to the amount of time for which typical performance was measured?
ReplyDeleteThis illustrates the difficulty in if we are measuring typical or maximal (or both) performance for selection. Depending on the job, maximal performances may be more critical to the success of the organization (e.g., firefighters and policeman). How do we determine which is preferred based on a job, not just the criteria? Also, organizational variables (e.g., support, climate, etc.) were not assessed regarding typical performance. I would think this would have more of an effect on typical versus maximal performance. Lastly, I agree with Shay in that seems that internal motivation is related to typical performance whereas maximal performance involves external motivation.
ReplyDeleteThe Klehe and Anderson (2007) findings show motivation and self-efficacy to better predict typical performance as compared maximum performance. Also, cognitive ability or knowledge of the task predicted maximum performance better than typical performance. These findings seem to imply that motivation may be a better predictor for long-term (i.e., typical) performance than cognitive ability. Are there some jobs when we would be more concerned for maximum performance instead of typical performance? One example might be professional sports teams, where the organization is concerned with big plays and big wins? Does that example hold true? Can you think of others?
ReplyDeleteMotivation was shown to be an important predictor of performance. What are some ways this could be measured to use in selection? Is this something companys could use "off the shelf" or would it need to be personalized to each job?
ReplyDeleteTypical vs. Maximum performance. Based on their findings, does this mean that performances ratings need to be aligned with the effort standards on the job?
ReplyDelete