Should we be examining personality from a trait or state perspective? That is, based on the results of this article, should our assessment take into account task contingent perspectives on personality? It seems this would be more helpful for individuals who might express a personality characteristic when the situation elicits it, but who may not express the characteristic in a trait-like fashion. Additionally, it seems as if multi-level modeling could help with the assessment of situational personality contingencies – but the problem would be in communicating that information to people within the organization.
•Social psychology has taught us that many things do "depend" (famous word of psychology) on the situation at times. This study confirms that and maybe we should be making measures that do consider individual differences like task-contingent conscientiousness. Again, how reliable or accurate are the self-reports with regards to faking and honesty of insightful analyzing of our personalities? Yet, it is likely impractical to use prior management, peers, coworkers, and family members to further assess personality of an applicant.
Do you think organizations can make estimations of what the typical task demands are for a job and then use findings such as these to make selection decisions?
Taken from this perspective, certain personalities should work better together than others and certain task should be better for certain personalities. How could organizations utilize this idea to staff work project teams? This seems to be like the regulatory fit theory, where certain personalities fit better with certain situations. Would this only work with conscientiousness?
I was bit perturbed that they did not discuss how this method could be used for external selection… This method (the CAPS approach) seems to get at the issues of linking personality traits more directly to the task at hand, which has not frequently occurred in the past (hence the problem with using personality…). How might their research findings be used in external selection? Also, consider the issue of range restriction when the method is used for internal vs. external selection.
The authors investigated the task-contingent within person variation in conscientiousness. How might similar research be conducted on other FFM traits and would we expect all fo the FFM traits to show similar task-contingent within person variation?
Should we be examining personality from a trait or state perspective? That is, based on the results of this article, should our assessment take into account task contingent perspectives on personality? It seems this would be more helpful for individuals who might express a personality characteristic when the situation elicits it, but who may not express the characteristic in a trait-like fashion. Additionally, it seems as if multi-level modeling could help with the assessment of situational personality contingencies – but the problem would be in communicating that information to people within the organization.
ReplyDelete•Social psychology has taught us that many things do "depend" (famous word of psychology) on the situation at times. This study confirms that and maybe we should be making measures that do consider individual differences like task-contingent conscientiousness. Again, how reliable or accurate are the self-reports with regards to faking and honesty of insightful analyzing of our personalities? Yet, it is likely impractical to use prior management, peers, coworkers, and family members to further assess personality of an applicant.
ReplyDeleteDo you think organizations can make estimations of what the typical task demands are for a job and then use findings such as these to make selection decisions?
ReplyDeleteTaken from this perspective, certain personalities should work better together than others and certain task should be better for certain personalities. How could organizations utilize this idea to staff work project teams? This seems to be like the regulatory fit theory, where certain personalities fit better with certain situations. Would this only work with conscientiousness?
ReplyDeleteI was bit perturbed that they did not discuss how this method could be used for external selection… This method (the CAPS approach) seems to get at the issues of linking personality traits more directly to the task at hand, which has not frequently occurred in the past (hence the problem with using personality…). How might their research findings be used in external selection? Also, consider the issue of range restriction when the method is used for internal vs. external selection.
ReplyDeleteThe authors investigated the task-contingent within person variation in conscientiousness. How might similar research be conducted on other FFM traits and would we expect all fo the FFM traits to show similar task-contingent within person variation?
ReplyDelete