Given Viswesvaran and Ones’ discussion of various types of job performance models, does any one of their four classifications of models (specific vs. general dimensions, specific vs. general jobs) seem most practical to defining job performance dimensions? Would organizations prefer more specific job performance dimensions for each job, or want more general job performance dimensions to use across all jobs? What might employees prefer?
Stability of performance dimensions was not discussed in this article, which I find critical as Steele-Johnson, Osburn, & Pieper (2000)pointed out in their study. In that, the general measures would cover more variance and have a stable validity over a period of time on the job. It seems that specific is not as necessary compared to a general factor, at times.
I found the research on the set of dimensions for the three specific occupations (entry level service industry jobs, managers and military jobs) helpful. It’s a tedious task to develop these (e.g. for O*Net?), but I can see where it is really helpful to be more specific (e.g. Borman’s 3 dimensions for unit effectiveness in the military – allegiance, teamwork, and determination). I can see using it for career counseling (something I’m interested in), and can see where it could be helpful for job evaluation and decision-making. Do you think this research should be prioritized over dimensions across occupations? What do you think is more helpful for selection?
These authors suggested job analysis as critical to constructing a good idea of job performance. While I agree with this, Steele-Johnson et al. (2000) showed how jobs and employees do not remain consistent over time. Can you think of a job analysis system that can take into account the evolving nature of organizations? That is, how can we adapt our understanding and systems of job performance and job analyses to continually change as the job/industry/employees change?
The bottom line of Veswesvaran and Ones (2000) seems to be that the criterion space of job performance still lacks full definition; however, I-O psychology has done a fairly decent job of narrowing in on predictors of job performance. My take away was that cognitive ability and conscientiousness were the best general predictors of overall job performance. Viswesvaran (1993) found that various performance dimensions culled from 300 different studies had a shared variance of over 50% - similar to what has been found using factor analysis of cognitive abilities. Unless a job has physical requirements, is there really much to be gained by testing applicants on more than cognitive ability and conscientiousness (at least according to the research as of this study)?
Do you think it is possible to do self reports to measure OCBs? Or would there be too many demand characteristics? Do you think these could/would be used for selection or is a person high in OCBs just a plus to an organization?
Given Viswesvaran and Ones’ discussion of various types of job performance models, does any one of their four classifications of models (specific vs. general dimensions, specific vs. general jobs) seem most practical to defining job performance dimensions? Would organizations prefer more specific job performance dimensions for each job, or want more general job performance dimensions to use across all jobs? What might employees prefer?
ReplyDeleteStability of performance dimensions was not discussed in this article, which I find critical as Steele-Johnson, Osburn, & Pieper (2000)pointed out in their study. In that, the general measures would cover more variance and have a stable validity over a period of time on the job. It seems that specific is not as necessary compared to a general factor, at times.
ReplyDeleteI found the research on the set of dimensions for the three specific occupations (entry level service industry jobs, managers and military jobs) helpful. It’s a tedious task to develop these (e.g. for O*Net?), but I can see where it is really helpful to be more specific (e.g. Borman’s 3 dimensions for unit effectiveness in the military – allegiance, teamwork, and determination). I can see using it for career counseling (something I’m interested in), and can see where it could be helpful for job evaluation and decision-making. Do you think this research should be prioritized over dimensions across occupations? What do you think is more helpful for selection?
ReplyDeleteIn line with Katie's comments...
ReplyDeleteThese authors suggested job analysis as critical to constructing a good idea of job performance. While I agree with this, Steele-Johnson et al. (2000) showed how jobs and employees do not remain consistent over time. Can you think of a job analysis system that can take into account the evolving nature of organizations? That is, how can we adapt our understanding and systems of job performance and job analyses to continually change as the job/industry/employees change?
The bottom line of Veswesvaran and Ones (2000) seems to be that the criterion space of job performance still lacks full definition; however, I-O psychology has done a fairly decent job of narrowing in on predictors of job performance. My take away was that cognitive ability and conscientiousness were the best general predictors of overall job performance. Viswesvaran (1993) found that various performance dimensions culled from 300 different studies had a shared variance of over 50% - similar to what has been found using factor analysis of cognitive abilities. Unless a job has physical requirements, is there really much to be gained by testing applicants on more than cognitive ability and conscientiousness (at least according to the research as of this study)?
ReplyDeleteDo you think it is possible to do self reports to measure OCBs? Or would there be too many demand characteristics? Do you think these could/would be used for selection or is a person high in OCBs just a plus to an organization?
ReplyDeleteHow do you think Organizational Citizenship Behaviors can be included in models of job performance when technically they are not required?
ReplyDelete