That's the bottom line from a study in the November 2009 issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology.
Oh & Berry looked at how adding personality ratings from peers and supervisors added incremental validity to self-ratings using a five-factor model measure. What were the results? Increases of 50-74% in operational validity across personality facets. They also looked at differential prediction of task and contextual performance (unfortunately those results weren't reported in the abstract). Bottom line? If you're using a personality assessment for promotions, strongly consider gathering data from co-workers.
Speaking of self-presentation, in the same issue Barrick et al. report the results of a meta-analysis of how self-presentation tactics (e.g., appearance, non-verbal behavior) impact interview ratings and later job performance. Results? "What you see in the interview may not be what you get on the job and...the unstructured interview is particularly impacted by these self-presentation tactics." An important reminder of how who the candidate seems to be impacts your assessment, and another reason to collect multiple sources of data.
There are a number of other great articles in this issue, such as:
How Major League Baseball CEO personalities impact important outcomes (like, um, winning).
How SJT and biodata measures add to the prediction of college student performance.
How personality scale validities change over time among a group of medical students.
Differences among letters of recommendation in academia between genders.
No comments:
Post a Comment