I thought this was a good meta-analysis; however, I dislike the way the classified the job criteria. For example, they said “such behavior as coming to work early and staying late reflects attempts to get ahead”. In fact their entire “ambition” classification seemed to be more a measure of pride for one’s own work, which is very different from trying to get ahead. I don’t like the idea of taking job behaviors and estimating the employee’s intentions behind the behavior. Or maybe I just don’t like their estimations. I don’t think someone who “values productivity” or “shows concern for quality” is necessarily trying to get ahead…Did anyone else find this troubling?
Per Hogan and Holland’s suggestion, do you find it more appropriate to predict specific job performance criteria? Or, rather than predicting a few specific criteria, should we be predicting overall job performance? Are personality measures a more appropriate fit for general or specific job performance criteria?
I agree with Shane. It is like they are guessing what the motivation is of the employees on these certain behaviors. But we really don't know what the employees intentions are by their behavior without asking. I also think their estimations of behavior reasons are off.
To me, "getting along or getting ahead" was kind of a catchy way of phrasing it. I don't think the authors meant it to necessarily have a negative connotation associated with the getting ahead criteria. Although it is catchy, the authors perhaps not phrased it that way to avoid the negative connotation.
Do you think that the way this is phrased could affect how much organizations want to use a selection measure like this?
I liked this research on personality and job performance. It's all pretty new to me and I find it very interesting and important as I'm very interested in career counseling. I was amazed at the list of the most common jobs in the US and their relationship with the Holland Code. I didn’t know social, investigative, and artistic was so low (in terms of % of jobs in the US). I valued learning about the potency of emotional stability as a predictor of job performance- related to 'getting along'. What did you think about it also being related to job satisfaction, commitment, and productivity?
Hogan and Holland refer to dimensions of job performance as falling within two broad categories: those that promote getting along and those that promote getting ahead. They place proficiency and leadership in the “getting ahead” category and they place personal discipline and facilitating peer and team performance in the “getting along” category. Does this seem theoretically valid? Cannot personal discipline be an aspect of getting ahead? Can facilitating peer and team performance be a form of “getting ahead” if this is an outcome on which one’s performance is evaluated?
I do like the notion of the seven factor structure because it obviously increases precision in our prediction based on the meta-analysis. However, in science we are supposed to strive for parsimony. Do you think that adding the additional two factors to replace our traditional big 5 taxonomy of personality at the cost of decreasing parsimony worth it?
I thought this was a good meta-analysis; however, I dislike the way the classified the job criteria. For example, they said “such behavior as coming to work early and staying late reflects attempts to get ahead”. In fact their entire “ambition” classification seemed to be more a measure of pride for one’s own work, which is very different from trying to get ahead. I don’t like the idea of taking job behaviors and estimating the employee’s intentions behind the behavior. Or maybe I just don’t like their estimations. I don’t think someone who “values productivity” or “shows concern for quality” is necessarily trying to get ahead…Did anyone else find this troubling?
ReplyDeletePer Hogan and Holland’s suggestion, do you find it more appropriate to predict specific job performance criteria? Or, rather than predicting a few specific criteria, should we be predicting overall job performance? Are personality measures a more appropriate fit for general or specific job performance criteria?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Shane. It is like they are guessing what the motivation is of the employees on these certain behaviors. But we really don't know what the employees intentions are by their behavior without asking. I also think their estimations of behavior reasons are off.
ReplyDeleteTo me, "getting along or getting ahead" was kind of a catchy way of phrasing it. I don't think the authors meant it to necessarily have a negative connotation associated with the getting ahead criteria. Although it is catchy, the authors perhaps not phrased it that way to avoid the negative connotation.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that the way this is phrased could affect how much organizations want to use a selection measure like this?
I liked this research on personality and job performance. It's all pretty new to me and I find it very interesting and important as I'm very interested in career counseling. I was amazed at the list of the most common jobs in the US and their relationship with the Holland Code. I didn’t know social, investigative, and artistic was so low (in terms of % of jobs in the US). I valued learning about the potency of emotional stability as a predictor of job performance- related to 'getting along'. What did you think about it also being related to job satisfaction, commitment, and productivity?
ReplyDeleteHogan and Holland refer to dimensions of job performance as falling within two broad categories: those that promote getting along and those that promote getting ahead. They place proficiency and leadership in the “getting ahead” category and they place personal discipline and facilitating peer and team performance in the “getting along” category. Does this seem theoretically valid? Cannot personal discipline be an aspect of getting ahead? Can facilitating peer and team performance be a form of “getting ahead” if this is an outcome on which one’s performance is evaluated?
ReplyDeleteI do like the notion of the seven factor structure because it obviously increases precision in our prediction based on the meta-analysis. However, in science we are supposed to strive for parsimony. Do you think that adding the additional two factors to replace our traditional big 5 taxonomy of personality at the cost of decreasing parsimony worth it?
ReplyDelete