Morgenson et al. I agree with some parts of this discussion because I do think people can misreport what they actually work like or other items associated on the personality measures. I think, sometimes people report what their ideal work behaviors or personality characteristics might be instead of what they do in actual practice. Would this disconnect make a difference? Ones et al. (2007) argued that it did not.
I found it interesting that many of the editors suggested either improving self-report measures of personality or finding new means of measuring personality. This suggests to me that even though current measures demonstrate low validities and some incremental validity, personality is still perceived to be an important predictor of job performance. What might other measures of personality look like in a predictor context? What might be perceived of personality if other measures do not demonstrate greater predictive validity than current measures?
This is related to how accurate people's understanding and perceptions are of their personality and work behaviors. Sometimes we can be not aligned with reality or with what others see us as who actually observe our behaviors. This would be easier to assess and correct with current employees applying for another internal position or higher position. How would this help the external applicants? Does this further devalue the use of personality measures for selection?
As Vicki said, the authors suggested either improving paper and pencil questionnaires or finding new ways of measuring personality. What are some ways that personality could be measured other than paper and pencil? How might this improve the personality as a predictor?
Do we improve the self-report instruments, let candidates in on what we are trying to assess, find new ways to assess personality dimensions, (e.g. ask co-workers), develop other new ways to measure, etc. How much does fakability concern you or does validity concern you more?
I wonder if face validity of the personality measure in a selection battery influences the degree to which individuals are willing to fake their answers? In other words, if they do not believe that their personality is relevant to how they will perform on the job, might they see the personality test as just a test on which they need to do their best?
In the question asking how personality tests can be used in a more effective way, I think that John Hollenbeck unfairly downplayed the use of personality because it was contingent on other variables. I think and understanding of the job contingencies (or moderators) is actually quite meaningful and useful in terms of job performance management and selection, what do you think?
Morgenson et al.
ReplyDeleteI agree with some parts of this discussion because I do think people can misreport what they actually work like or other items associated on the personality measures. I think, sometimes people report what their ideal work behaviors or personality characteristics might be instead of what they do in actual practice. Would this disconnect make a difference? Ones et al. (2007) argued that it did not.
I found it interesting that many of the editors suggested either improving self-report measures of personality or finding new means of measuring personality. This suggests to me that even though current measures demonstrate low validities and some incremental validity, personality is still perceived to be an important predictor of job performance. What might other measures of personality look like in a predictor context? What might be perceived of personality if other measures do not demonstrate greater predictive validity than current measures?
ReplyDeleteThis is related to how accurate people's understanding and perceptions are of their personality and work behaviors. Sometimes we can be not aligned with reality or with what others see us as who actually observe our behaviors. This would be easier to assess and correct with current employees applying for another internal position or higher position. How would this help the external applicants? Does this further devalue the use of personality measures for selection?
ReplyDeleteAs Vicki said, the authors suggested either improving paper and pencil questionnaires or finding new ways of measuring personality. What are some ways that personality could be measured other than paper and pencil? How might this improve the personality as a predictor?
ReplyDeleteDo we improve the self-report instruments, let candidates in on what we are trying to assess, find new ways to assess personality dimensions, (e.g. ask co-workers), develop other new ways to measure, etc. How much does fakability concern you or does validity concern you more?
ReplyDeleteI wonder if face validity of the personality measure in a selection battery influences the degree to which individuals are willing to fake their answers? In other words, if they do not believe that their personality is relevant to how they will perform on the job, might they see the personality test as just a test on which they need to do their best?
ReplyDeleteIn the question asking how personality tests can be used in a more effective way, I think that John Hollenbeck unfairly downplayed the use of personality because it was contingent on other variables. I think and understanding of the job contingencies (or moderators) is actually quite meaningful and useful in terms of job performance management and selection, what do you think?
ReplyDelete