How might organizations go about selecting specific facets of integrity to use as a predictor of job performance? It seems that it could be challenging to guide organizations into selecting only a few related facets, as most organizations who have decided that integrity is important for job performance might want to measure it from an overall perspective rather than a more specific perspective.
•The authors stated that, "norms of serious dishonesty, which was not significantly related to performance, would violate the 4/5 rule." Yet this is not the only measure of adverse impact. Why would companies be discouraged if the 4/5ths rule does not have to be followed if there is legal justification for using this selection test for the specific job?
This study examined integrity tests in customer service personnel; however, this would seem more relevant in a job where a lack of integrity can have more dire consequences. Let’s face it, a customer service person will have little if any effect on the company if they are low on integrity. Wouldn’t this type of predictor be better used in higher level positions, especially in the banking and finance sector? Or am I just biased from the events of 2008?
Do the findings of this study seem to point to the importance of looking at the various facets of broad constructs such as personality, integrity, CWBs, and job performance when trying to calculate validities and identify differential relationships?
I thought this was a particularly interesting study especially because it showed that we learn different things depending on whether we are using broad or narrow facets. I was a little unnerved by the fact that they found so much race and gender bias. How would you handle some of the issues? Do you think they are still worth being used?
After working on our individual project, I found this research particularly interesting in its examination of the predictive validity of the broad measure vs more specific facets of integrity and also the differential validity with subgroups.
How might organizations go about selecting specific facets of integrity to use as a predictor of job performance? It seems that it could be challenging to guide organizations into selecting only a few related facets, as most organizations who have decided that integrity is important for job performance might want to measure it from an overall perspective rather than a more specific perspective.
ReplyDelete•The authors stated that, "norms of serious dishonesty, which was not significantly related to performance, would violate the 4/5 rule." Yet this is not the only measure of adverse impact. Why would companies be discouraged if the 4/5ths rule does not have to be followed if there is legal justification for using this selection test for the specific job?
ReplyDeleteIn what kinds of jobs might organizations be concerned with integrity testing?
ReplyDeleteThis study examined integrity tests in customer service personnel; however, this would seem more relevant in a job where a lack of integrity can have more dire consequences. Let’s face it, a customer service person will have little if any effect on the company if they are low on integrity. Wouldn’t this type of predictor be better used in higher level positions, especially in the banking and finance sector? Or am I just biased from the events of 2008?
ReplyDeleteDo the findings of this study seem to point to the importance of looking at the various facets of broad constructs such as personality, integrity, CWBs, and job performance when trying to calculate validities and identify differential relationships?
ReplyDeleteI thought this was a particularly interesting study especially because it showed that we learn different things depending on whether we are using broad or narrow facets. I was a little unnerved by the fact that they found so much race and gender bias. How would you handle some of the issues? Do you think they are still worth being used?
ReplyDeleteAfter working on our individual project, I found this research particularly interesting in its examination of the predictive validity of the broad measure vs more specific facets of integrity and also the differential validity with subgroups.
ReplyDelete