adu slides 2014---selection of high performing people

Présentation PowerPointThe FOUNDING of Organizational Success?
Employ the most Valid & Reliable Assessment Tools in order to Select the Right People!!!
WHO are the Right People?
The HIGH PERFORMING People!!!
Individual Job Performance
Overall job performance is a two-dimensional construct which consists of task performance and contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996)
task performance: the degree of fulfilment of the essential technical activities/duties that differ across jobs→ the technical aspects of the job predicted better by mental abilities and extremely strongly by GMA
contextual performance (organizational citizenship behavior-OCB): the degree of engagement into behaviours supporting the organizational socio-psychological environment in which the technical aspects of the job are put forward (personal, organizational support & conscientious initiative: Coleman & Borman, 2000)→ the contextual aspects of the job predicted better by personality: strongly by conscientiousness & less strongly by emotional stability
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September 2009
Job Performance…
job performance in the vast majority of the cases is measured according to supervisor ratings
supervisor ratings in the vast majority of the cases refer only to task performance
(overall) job performance suppose to refer to both task & contextual performance but it is widely accepted that contextual performance is largely underrepresented if present at all
as a result personality as a predictor of job performance tends to be underestimated in the literature and especially in the most recent meta-analyses
be aware that when it comes to behavior prediction, lower order traits (facets) outscore significantly higher order traits at the level of the Big 5
The Founding for Recruiting, Assessing & Selecting High Performing People?
Job Analysis: the scientific (systematic) study and assembly of all the facts about a job; that is all information related to the duties, tasks, responsibilities, relationships, outcomes, and work environment of a particular job including salary and benefits, working hours and conditions. The results of job analysis are job description and job (person) specification which are the major constituents of a realistic job preview
job analysis ought to be based upon the previously conducted organizational analysis which concludes all the different jobs that are needed, including how they are inter-related, for an organization to fulfill its purpose according to the strategy being pursued
Job Description is practically the primary conclusion of job analysis in the form of a detailed written statement of all the required information about a given job
Job (Person) Specification is the primary conclusion with reference to the specific KSAO’s of the “right” person for the job: which selection/assessment tools to use?
KSAOs are the job-related Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, and Other characteristics that a person needs to possess for high job performance; typically two major categories – technical and behavioral
*
Types of Employement Tests (APA)
*
ASSESSMENT CENTERS can be designed to measure many different types of job related skills and abilities, but are often used to assess interpersonal skills, communication skills, planning and organizing, and analytical skills. The assessment center typically consists of exercises that reflect job content and types of problems faced on the job. For example, individuals might be evaluated on their ability to make a sales presentation or on their behavior in a simulated meeting. In addition to these simulation exercises, assessment centers often include other kinds of tests such as cognitive ability tests, personality inventories, and job knowledge tests. The assessment center typically uses multiple raters who are trained to observe, classify, and evaluate behaviors. At the end of the assessment center, the raters meet to make overall judgments about peoples performance in the center .
Advantages
Disadvantages
Have been demonstrated to produce valid inferences for a number of organizational outcomes (e.g., promotion rates). Can reduce business costs by identifying individuals for hiring, promotion or training who possess the needed skills and abilities. May be viewed positively by test takers who see the close relationship between the test and the job. Can provide useful feedback to test takers regarding needed training and development. Focus more heavily on behavior demonstration than simply assessing characteristics. Use trained raters. Are typically less likely to differ in results by gender and race than other types of tests.
Can be costly to create and administer. Require more labor (e.g., assessors, role-players, etc.) to administer than most other methods. Require more time to administer than most other methods. Can be difficult to keep calibrated or standardized across time and locations.
*
Biographical Data: the content varies widely, and may include such areas as leadership, teamwork skills, specific job knowledge and specific skills (e.g., knowledge of certain software, specific mechanical tool use), interpersonal skills, extraversion, creativity, etc. Biographical data typically uses questions about education, training, work experience, and interests to predict success on the job. Some biographical data instruments also ask about an individuals attitudes, personal assessments of skills, and personality.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Can be administered via paper and pencil or computerized methods easily to large numbers. Can be cost effective to administer. Have been demonstrated to produce valid inferences for a number of organizational outcomes (e.g., turnover, performance). Are typically less likely to differ in results by gender and race than other types of tests. Does not require skilled administrators. Can reduce business costs by identifying individuals for hiring, promotion or training who possess the needed skills and abilities.
May lead to individuals responding in a way to create a positive decision outcome rather than how they really are (i.e., they may try to positively manage their impression or even fake their response). Do not always provide sufficient information for developmental feedback (i.e., individuals cannot change their past). Can be time-consuming to develop if not purchased off-the-shelf.
*
Cognitive ability tests typically use questions or problems to measure ability to learn quickly, logic, reasoning, reading comprehension and other enduring mental abilities that are fundamental to success in many different jobs. Cognitive ability tests assess a persons aptitude or potential to solve job-related problems by providing information about their mental abilities such as verbal or mathematical reasoning and perceptual abilities like speed in recognizing letters of the alphabet
Advantages
Disadvantages
Have been demonstrated to produce valid inferences for a number of organizational outcomes (e.g., performance, success in training). Have been demonstrated to predict job performance particularly for more complex jobs. Can be administered via paper and pencil or computerized methods easily to large numbers. Can be cost effective to administer. Does not typically require skilled administrators. Can reduce business costs by identifying individuals for hiring, promotion or training who possess the needed skills and abilities. Will not be influenced by test taker attempts to impression manage or fake responses.
Are typically more likely to differ in results by gender and race than other types of tests. Can be time-consuming to develop if not purchased off-the-shelf.
*
Integrity tests assess attitudes and experiences related to a persons honesty, dependability, trustworthiness, reliability, and pro-social behavior. These tests typically ask direct questions about previous experiences related to ethics and integrity OR ask questions about preferences and interests from which inferences are drawn about future behavior in these areas. Integrity tests are used to identify individuals who are likely to engage in inappropriate, dishonest, and antisocial behavior at work.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Have been demonstrated to produce valid inferences for a number of organizational outcomes (e.g., performance, inventory shrinkage difficulties in dealing with supervision). Can reduce business costs by identifying individuals who are less likely to be absent, or engage in other counterproductive behavior. Send the message to test takers that integrity is an important corporate value. Are typically less likely to differ in results by gender and race than other types of tests. Can be administered via paper and pencil or computerized methods easily to large numbers. Can be cost effective to administer. Does not require skilled administrators.
May lead to individuals responding in a way to create a positive decision outcome rather than how they really are (i.e., they may try to positively manage their impression or even fake their response). May be disliked by test takers if questions are intrusive or seen as unrelated to the job.
*
Selection Interviews vary greatly in their content, but are often used to assess such things as interpersonal skills, communication skills, and teamwork skills, and can be used to assess job knowledge. Well-designed interviews typically use a standard set of questions to evaluate knowledge, skills, abilities, and other qualities required for the job. The interview is the most commonly used type of test. Employers generally conduct interviews either face-to-face or by phone.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Are expected and accepted by many job applicants. Provide an opportunity for a two-way exchange of information. Provide a measure of skills such as oral communication skills not measured via paper and pencil or computerized tools. Have been demonstrated to produce valid inferences for a number of organizational outcomes, if properly developed and administered Can reduce business costs by identifying individuals for hiring, promotion or training who possess the needed skills and abilities. Are typically less likely to differ in results by gender and race than other types of tests.
May be affected by different kinds of rating errors and biases by interviewers. Are often more time-consuming to administer than paper and pencil or computerized tools. May be practically less useful when a large number of individuals must be evaluated because of administration time. Can be costly to train interviewers. May be difficult to keep interviewers calibrated and the interview process standardized. May lead to individuals responding in a way to create a positive decision outcome rather than how they really are (i.e., they may try to positively manage their impression or even fake their response).
*
Job knowledge tests typically use multiple choice questions or essay type items to evaluate technical or professional expertise and knowledge required for specific jobs or professions. Examples of job knowledge tests include tests of basic accounting principles, A+/Net+ programming, and blueprint reading.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Have been demonstrated to produce valid inferences for a number of organizational outcomes, such as job performance. Can reduce business costs by identifying individuals for hiring, promotion or training who possess the needed skills and abilities. Are typically less likely to differ in results by gender and race than other types of tests. May be viewed positively by test takers who see the close relationship between the test and the job. Will not be influenced by test taker attempts to impression manage or fake responses. Can provide useful feedback to test takers regarding needed training and development.
May require frequent updates to ensure test is current with the job. May be inappropriate for jobs where knowledge may be obtained via a short training period. Can be costly and time-consuming to develop, unless purchased off-the-shelf.
*
Personality tests » most commonly assessed personality traits in work settings are extraversion, conscientiousness, openness to new experiences, optimism, agreeableness, service orientation, stress tolerance, emotional stability, and initiative or proactivity. Personality tests typically measure traits related to behavior at work, interpersonal interactions, and satisfaction with different aspects of work. Personality tests are often used to assess whether individuals have the potential to be successful in jobs where performance requires a great deal of interpersonal interaction or work in team settings.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Have been demonstrated to produce valid inferences for a number of organizational outcomes. Can reduce business costs by identifying individuals for hiring, promotion or training who possess the needed skills and abilities. Are typically less likely to differ in results by gender and race than other types of tests. Can be administered via paper and pencil or computerized methods easily to large numbers. Can be cost effective to administer. Does not require skilled administrators.
May contain questions that do not appear job related or seem intrusive if not well developed. May lead to individuals responding in a way to create a positive decision outcome rather than how they really are (i.e., they may try to positively manage their impression or even fake their response). May be problematic for use in employee selection if the test is one used to diagnose medical conditions (i.e., mental disorders) rather than simply to assess work-related personality traits.
The Five Factor Model (FFM) or the Big 5 of Personality: NEO PI-R Test
The NEO PI-R is a measure of the five major domains of personality as well as the six facets that define each domain. Taken together, the five domain scales and thirty facet scales of the NEO PI-R facilitate a comprehensive and detailed assessment of normal adult personality. The NEO PI-R is recognized internationally as a gold standard for personality assessment. Today, reputable developers of personality tests for the occupational market will as a matter of course publish data on the relationship of their tests with the five factor model using one form or another of the NEO as the benchmark. The total amount of recent data from high level academic journals concerning the NEO PI-R underpins its quality.
Extraversion: quantity and intensity of energy directed outwards into the social world
Warmth: interest in and friendliness towards others
Gregariousness: preference for the company of others
Assertiveness: social ascendancy and forcefulness of expression
Activity: pace of living
Positive Emotion: tendency to experience positive emotions
Openness to Experience: the active seeking and appreciation of experiences for their own sake
Fantasy: receptivity to the inner world of imagination
Aesthetics: appreciation of art and beauty
Feelings: openness to inner feelings and emotions
Actions: openness to new experiences on a practical level
Ideas: intellectual curiosity
*
Neuroticism (Emotional Stability-R): identifies individuals who are prone to psychological distress
Anxiety: level of free floating anxiety
Angry Hostility: tendency to experience anger and related states such as frustration and bitterness
Depression: tendency to experience feelings of guilt, sadness, despondency and loneliness
Self Consciousness: shyness or social anxiety
Impulsiveness: tendency to act on cravings and urges rather than reining them in and delaying gratification
Vulnerability: general susceptibility to stress
Agreeableness: the kinds of interactions an individual prefers from compassion to tough mindedness
Trust: belief in the sincerity and good intentions of others
Straightforwardness: frankness in expression
Compliance: response to interpersonal conflict
Modesty: tendency to play down own achievements and be humble.
Tender mindedness: attitude of sympathy for others.
Conscientiousness: degree of organization, persistence, control and motivation in goal directed behaviour
Competence: belief in own self efficacy
Order: personal organization
Achievement striving: need for personal achievement and sense of direction
Self Discipline: capacity to begin tasks and follow through to completion despite boredom or distractions.
Deliberation: tendency to think things through before acting or speaking.
Extraversion
Extraverts are more susceptible to rewards and to social attention
Introverts dislike loud noises, large social gatherings and suffer from overstimulation
Advantages of Extraverts
Are better leaders: extraversion is best predictor of leadership, especially leader emergence
Perform better in jobs emphasizing social skills and social interactions: people managers, service, sales, etc.
Perform better in jobs that are competitive: real estate agent, lawyer, barber/stylist
Disadvantages of Extraverts
More impulsive: higher levels of absence and accidents, more likely to engage in risky behavior due to sensation- and excitement-seeking and more likely to have accidents—at work and elsewhere (higher traffic fatalities)
Less likely to perform well in jobs that require long attention spans or where work is routinized
Openness to Experience
(Declines with Age)
Advantages of Open People
Cope better with organizational change
Have higher adaptability
Higher levels of counterproductive behaviors and accidents
Lower commitment to their employers
Are not happier or better job performers (in most types of jobs)
Neurotism
Better able to detect threats in environment
Less likely to take unnecessary and foolish risks
Disadvantages of Neurotics
Lower life satisfaction and job satisfaction
Increased levels of anxiety, stress mental and physical illness as well as mortality
Heightened susceptibility to depression
Conscientiousness
Advantages of Conscientious People
Are better job performers probably due to higher self-regulation and engagement into goal setting
Live relatively longer
Higher leader effectiveness
Higher integrity
Disadvantages of Conscientious People
Deal poorly with unplanned change: If operating rules or conditions change, conscientious individuals struggle
Learn less during initial stages of learning
When combined with low agreeableness, may be interpersonally difficult
Less creative
Agreableness
Advantages of Agreeable People
Are those people most desired as romantic partners, friends, team members, etc.
Function well in teams (better followers)
Have fewer work and non-work conflicts
Are less likely to engage in counterproductive work behaviors
Disadvantages of Agreeable People
Particularly susceptible to leniency errors
Conflict-avoidant
*
Work samples & Simulations typically focus on measuring specific job skills or job knowledge, but can also assess more general skills such as organizational skill, analytic skills, and interpersonal skills. Work samples and simulations typically require performance of tasks that are the same or similar to those performed on the job to assess their level of skill or competence. For example, work samples might involve installing a telephone line, creating a document in Word, or tuning an engine.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Have been demonstrated to produce valid inferences regarding ability to perform the job. Can reduce business costs by identifying individuals for hiring, promotion or training who possess the needed skills and abilities. Are less likely to differ in results by gender and race than other types of tests (depends on particular skills being assessed). May be more accepted by test takers due to the obvious link between the test and the job. Less likely to be influenced by test taker attempts to impression manage or fake responses. Can be used to provide specific developmental feedback. Can provide test takers with a realistic preview of the job and the organization.
Does not assess aptitude to perform more complex tasks that may be encountered on the job. May not assess the ability to learn new tasks quickly. Often not conducive to group administration. May require some level of job knowledge and therefore may be inappropriate for jobs where knowledge may be obtained via a short training period. May be difficult to keep updated. May be expensive to administer. May be time consuming to develop and to administer.
Unstructured vs. Structured Interviews
selection interviews differ primarily with reference to how much structured they are in their content
in unstructured interviews different candidates are evaluated “blindly” upon non-previously rated answers to non-previously standardized questions neither in content, nor in number while the duration also fluctuates; unfortunately this is the most common type of interviews and in the vast majority of the cases in the form of a CV-based (biographical) interview, where the candidate is questioned upon relevant education and/or job experience of the past---it points to the fact that not any form of job analysis has been conducted and/or concluded
in structured interviews there is standardized content and duration, that is specific questions that have an array of pre-rated possible answers within a specific time limit; all candidates are evaluated upon possible pre-rated answers when asked the very same questions within the same time limit---it points to the fact that some form of job analysis has been conducted and concluded
obviously unstructured interviews compared with structured ones suffer primarily from inferior reliability which puts a first low upper limit to its predictive validity with reference to job performance; secondarily its content which is most probably not based upon a job analysis further restricts its predictive validity with reference to job performance
Inter-rater (agreement) reliability is 0.37 for unstructured vs. 0.67 for structured interviews
Predictive validity is 0.20 for unstructured vs. 0.56 for structured interviews
Salgado (1999)
Behavioral vs. Situational
Structured Interviews
behavioral interviews contain questions based upon some form of job analysis which are behaviorally “anchored” with reference to how the candidate has behaved in the past, when faced with the same or similar circumstances; the basic principle is that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior
However the latest evidence on personality trait development reveal that personality does change and at least for some people quite significantly. Thus future behavior might be strikingly different from past behavior; this fact not only questions the validity of behavioral interviews but also highlights ethical concerns
situational interviews contain questions also based upon some form of job analysis (usually employing the Critical Incidents Technique-CIT), but which in contrast are hypothetically “anchored” with reference to how the candidate at the best of his/her knowledge up to date would behave in response to a hypothetical job scenario; the principle here is more in line with the latest evidence on personality development and thus more valid and ethical compared with that of behavioral interviews
Predictive validity is 0.51-56 for behavioral vs. 0.43-0.45 for situational structured interviews while both provide significant incremental validity beyond GMA and personality testing
Taylor & Small (2002)
The Best Predictors of Job Performance
GMA is by far the best predictor of both Overall & Task Performance (higher for high complexity jobs) but conscientiousness & em. stability provide significant incremental validity
Population Estimation for GMA 0.734 (0.760 for training performance)
Population Estimation for Conscientiousness 0.332 (0.367) & Emotional Stability 0.100 (0.106)
Population Estimation for all the 3 predictors combined 0.770 (0.804)
The Best Predictors of Job Performance…
these results are reported in the Schmidt et al. (2008) study and are based upon mean meta-analytical correlations (both US and European-Union meta-analyses) corrected for measurement error both in predictor and the criterion as well as for both direct and indirect range restriction (GMA: 8 meta-analyses for both job and training performance; Con: 6 and 3 respectively; ES: 5 and 3 respectively)
due to the inadequacy of the validity data for incorporating contextual performance, job performance in this study has to be considered to reflect rather task performance than contextual performance
The Best Predictors of Job Performance…
Another earlier study of Le, Oh, Shaffer and Schmidt (2007), employing the population coefficient of GMA for medium complexity jobs drawn from the Hunter, Schmidt and Le (2006), the population coefficient of structured job interviews from the meta-analysis of McDaniel et al.1994) and the population coefficient of conscientiousness from the meta-analysis of Barrick & Mount (1991), provided an estimation of the combined predictive validity (in terms of job performance) of all the three predictors which came up to a level of about 0.77
it is important to highlight that the widely known and accepted moderation effect of job complexity to the relationship of GMA with job performance as well as the generalizability of the predictive validity of GMA (US meta-analyses) has been also verified by EU meta-analyses (cf. Salgado et al., 2003a; Salgado et al., 2003b)
Notable is though the fact that in the EU Salgado et al. (2003b) meta-analysis of the relationship of GMA with both job and training performance across various occupations, the highest operational value (0.67: slightly higher than the value obtained in general for high complexity jobs-0.64) was obtained for the managerial occupation (note that this value is not corrected, and thus is probably underestimated, for the downward bias in predictor-job performance relationships caused by range restriction because this methodology was developed later on).
Person-Environment Fit
in the Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) meta-analysis relationships with overall performance were weak (<0.2) and comparable for Person-Job (0.20), Person-Group (0.19), and Person-Supervisor fit (0.18), while the relationship with Person-Organization fit was substantially smaller (.07).
contextual performance was more strongly correlated with both P-O (0.27) and P-G fit (0.23) but remain at a low-moderate level
both P-O and P-J fit had comparable strong effects (concurrent and predictive) on affective outcomes, both pre-entry such as organizational attraction (0.48 vs. 0.46) and intent to hire (0.61 vs. 0.66) & post-entry such as job satisfaction (0.44 vs. 0.56), organizational commitment (0.51 vs. 0.47) and intent to quit (0.35 vs. 0.46)
Person-Environment Fit…
a more recent meta-analysis that of Winfred et al. (2006) estimated a correlation of P-O Fit with overall performance at the level of 0.15 which however was found to be non-generalizable
Legal Concerns are raised by Winfred et al. (2006) for the cases where selection decisions are founded upon P-E Fit since the correlation with overall job performance appears to be very weak and even non-generalizable
Job Experience as a Predictor…
the meta-analysis of McDaniel, Schmidt & Hunter (1988) reveals that when job experience is considered only and strictly in terms of duration of tenure, in the same or a similar job, its correlation with job performance is considerable only in the very early career (for very low levels of tenure) while the general population coefficient is 0.32
higher correlation for jobs that place low levels of cognitive demands on employees, that is for low complexity jobs (e.g. administrators & assistants, than for high complexity jobs (e.g. managers & professionals)---that is 0.39 vs. 0.28
and degrading further later on, up to a point of tenure, where it falls bellow 0.2; after 9 years of tenure in high complexity jobs and 12 years for low complexity jobs
Job Experience as a Predictor…
Training Performance vs. Job Performance
*

adu slides 2014---selection of high performing people

Documents