To What Extent Does Personality Predicts Employee Performance - Essay Example

Personality and Employee Performance Personality and Employee Performance Personality measures are more and more being applied by managers together with other human resource experts to assess the appropriateness of employee performance for spots across numerous levels in the organization (Hakstian & Ng 2005, p. 405). The development of this exercise certainly originates from a chain of meta-analytic studies of the 90s where traits measures were confirmed to have a degree of certainty, as well as validity for employee performance, which previously had not been apparent (Hakstian & Ng 2005, p. 405). In this paper, I briefly assess available survey information on the recent use of personality in employee performance and also the historical background for the development of this HR trend. However, of specific interest all through this paper are the impacts for HR practice in the application of personality/character for employee performance. The Current Application of Personality in Employee Performance Even though, it is hard to find reports on research using methodical testing measures to decide with confidence the extent which personality is now being utilized by companies as a component of their personnel selection exercises, several surveys of organizational usage, human resource professionals, as well as industry reports, might be pooled together to give a sensibly nice image of the extent, which such measures are being used. A study done of recruiters in 2003 showed that over 30% of American firms used personality/character tests to screen job applications (Rothstein & Goffin 2006, p. 155). Integrity tests, a difficult type of personality appraisal, are provided to as many as over five million job candidates each year (a number, which has been increasing by 20% each year), and are reportedly utilized by 20% of the affiliates of the Human Resource Management Society (HRMS) (Rothstein & Goffin 2006, p. 155). Another review of by Human Resource Management Society showed that over 40% of Fortune 100 firms reported applying personality tests for evaluating some level of employee performance from forefront office workers to the chief executive (Barrick, Stewart & Piotrowski 2002, p. 46). These outcomes seem to point out a change in approach among HR professionals because a study carried out by Judge et al. (1999, p. 630) where participants reported more distrust concerning the exploitation of personality testing for forecasting job performance. Yet another survey showed that all top 100 firms in Britain reported utilizing personality tests as a component of their hiring process and gauging the performance of their employees (Hurtz & Donovan 2000, p. 877). Rothstein & Goffin (2006, p. 155) have projected that two thirds of average and large companies use some type of psychosomatic testing, including skill, as well as characters, in job applicant screening. Industry reports are steady with these studies showing increased practice of personality testing. It has been projected that personality/character testing is a $400 million business in the U.S. only, plus it is rising at a standard rate of 10% each year (Rothstein & Goffin 2006, p. 156). In addition to issues about the application of personality testing, many surveys have been carried out attempting to decide the grounds for the positive approach toward character testing for job performance. The most significant reason offered for applying personality testing was their help in improving employee fitness and decreasing turnover rates by as much as 20% (Barrick, Stewart & Piotrowski 2002, p. 43), 30% (Judge et al. 1999, 640), 40% (Hurtz & Donovan 2000, p. 875), and even 70% (Rothstein & Goffin 2006, p. 156). It is of significant interest that proof for the strength of personality tests for forecasting job performance is hardly ever cited by HR recruiters or professionals. Criticisms of character testing, on the other hand, are frequently cited in many similar reports, regularly with little analysis or comprehension of the research evidence or technical issues (Rothstein & Goffin 2006, p. 156). For instance, the application of the MMPI is frequently cited for its failure to forecast job performance and likelihood for legal action if applied for such purposes, in spite of the truth that this is well recognized among personality surveyors who offer clear principles for the proper option and employment of character tests for job performance (Rothstein & Goffin 2006, p. 156). Thus, it seems that personality testing is evidently growing in frequency as a constituent of the personnel selection procedure, even though HR recruiters and professionals may not completely value the benefit ensued by neither this practice nor the difficulties of selecting the right test plus using it properly. Is Personality a Valid Predictor of Employee Performance? A Short Review of the Meta-Analytic Proof The drive for the numerous meta-analytic surveys of personality and work performance relationships has most frequently been derived from a significant review of the available study at the time by Hough & Ones (2002, p. 250). On the basis of their evaluation, Hough & Ones (2002, p. 250) concluded that there was small evidence for the soundness of personality measures in employee performance. In the years after the publishing this article, hundreds of researchers challenged this finding and tried to show the validity of forecasting job performance using an apparently continual number of personality constructs, different performance criteria, and many diverse jobs and occupations. Some of the earliest attempts to review this literature using meta-analysis were carried out by Rothstein & Goffin (2006, p. 170); Barrick, Stewart & Piotrowski (2002, p. 48) and Hurtz & Donovan (2000, p. 870) Judge et al. (1999, p. 630). They got a mean uncorrected connection of 15 across all performance criteria, personality qualities, as well as occupations, a discovery, which led these authors to finalize that character measures were less valid compared to other predictors of employee performance. By the 90s, nevertheless, methodological advances in meta-analysis and the surfacing of an extensively accepted classification of personality traits, the “five factor model” or otherwise know are the FFM (i.e., Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, as well as Openness to Experience), prompted a chain of meta-analytic studies, which have offered a much more optimistic and constructive view of the capacity of personality measures to forecast employee performance. Two meta-analytic researches of personality and job performance relations have been particularly influential in this paper (Hough & Ones 2002, p. 233 and Rothstein & Goffin 2006, p. 155). Hough & Ones (2002, p. 233) classified personality measures in line with the FFM prior to assessing their validity for forecasting job performance with regards to several occupational groups, as well as performance criteria. The authors found out that the projected true link between FFM proportions of performance and personality across both work-related groups and principle types varied from 04 for Honesty to Skill to 22 for Meticulousness. Even though, links in this range might seem fairly modest, on the other hand, these results offered a more positive perception of the prospective of personality for forecasting job performance plus this study had a significant impact on practitioners and researchers (Barrick, Stewart & Piotrowski 2002, p. 50). In addition, links of this magnitude can still offer substantial usefulness to personnel selection choices (e.g., Judge et al. 1999, p. 650), mainly because the forecast of job performance given by personality seems to be incremental to that of other key selection techniques. Hakstian & Ng (2005, p. 405) meta-analysis of personality and employee performance associations had a fairly diverse purpose plus their main input was to highlight the vital significance to validity study of an assenting research strategy where personality measures were imagined a priori to be connected theoretically or logically to a particular job performance criteria. Hakstian & Ng (2005, p. 405) determined that corroboration studies using a confirmatory study strategy formed validity coefficients, which were over twice as high as researches wherein an investigative approach, were used. The effect of these meta-analytic researches was partly because of the growth of meta-analysis methods, which were better capable of cumulating results across studies assessing the same relations to approximate the universal effect size, whereas correcting for objects such as measurement and sampling errors, which characteristically suit results from personal studies. Secondly, these researches offered a much clearer comprehension of the function of personality in employee performance than did earlier meta-analyses through examining the impacts of character on diverse criterion types and in diverse jobs. Thirdly, the researches took advantage of the growth of the FFM of character wherein the huge number of personality trait scales and names could be categorized efficiently into five convincing dimensions, which could be more simply understood by practitioners and researchers alike. Therefore, results from Hough & Ones (2002, p. 233) and Rothstein & Goffin (2006, p. 155) became the basis for regeneration of interest in both practice and research regarding the application of personality to forecast job-related behavior. In spite of the huge input of these revolutionary researches to interpreting personality and job performance relations, it should be recognized that they created substantial controversy, as well. It is not likely to review the various criticisms along with debates here, which have spurred over the past years, nor is it vital provided that considerable improvement has been made towards rectifying many of these debates (Hough & Ones 2002, p. 233 and Rothstein & Goffin 2006, p. 155). Nevertheless, it is essential to sum up, in brief, a couple of the key matters, which have been the center of much of the storm in that these problems might inform future application of personality measures in employee performance and selection by both practitioners and researchers. At the most elemental methodological stage, the process of meta-analysis has also been criticized as claimed by Barrick, Stewart & Piotrowski (2002, p. 50). In some situations, criticisms of meta-analytic study have been aimed at particular applications like the use of meta-analytic findings in police recruitment (Barrick, Stewart & Piotrowski 2002, p. 50). For instance, Hakstian & Ng (2005, p. 430) have claimed that choosing of personality measures rooted on meta-analytic findings should ensure that results are derived from relevant samples, as well as performance criteria and appropriate tests, particularly in the field of police selection. In essence, nevertheless, the methodological worries with meta-analysis can be eased through a systematic understanding of the method, as well as its appropriate application. Hakstian & Ng (2005, p. 430) has offered a study of the vital issues to reflect on to justify making conclusions from meta-analyses for personnel selection or research. These concerns are (a) worth of the primary studies it contains and the data base; (b) whether the researches incorporated in the meta-analysis are agents of the populace of likely applications of the forecaster; (c) whether a specific test being regarded for use is an affiliate of the populace of instruments assessed in the meta-analysis; and finally (d) whether the state intended for use is related to the circumstances tested in the meta-analysis. Even though, Hakstian & Ng (2005, p. 430) point out that numerous meta-analyses leave out such vital information; however, practitioners and researchers have clear guidelines for assessing meta-analytic results. Presuming that suitable practical processes have been used, meta-analytic results are more and more accepted, particularly in the area of assessing personnel performance and selection (Hough & Ones 2002, p. 233 and Rothstein & Goffin 2006, p. 157). A cautious reflection of these elements has also been connected to the suitable use of validity simplification principles for shaping the potential worth of personality measures as forecasters of work performance (Hough & Ones 2002, p. 233 and Rothstein & Goffin 2006, p. 157). In summary, in spite of the debates surrounding meta-analysis, as well as the FFM, the influence of the meta-analytic data undoubtedly leads to the finalization that personality measures might be a significant donor to the forecast of employee performance. The influence of these meta-analytic surveys has confirmed the earlier findings of Hough & Ones (2002, p. 233) and put personality back into practice and research. Long ago when meta-analyses started to be published, study in personality and employee performance has endured, forming a wealth of further comprehension and impacts for the application of personality/character measures in employee selection. An analyst can apply the data to test his/her theories concerning how specific personality characteristics forecast specific aspects of employee performance. Using this procedure should help guarantee job relevance, as well as a business necessity, evidently recognize the performance criteria, choose the proper gadget for the investigation rooted in theory, validity, and reliability, guarantee that job performance raters comprehend the applicable criteria and eventually advance people’s knowledge of how character traits add to job performance. References Barrick, M R, Stewart, G L & Piotrowski, M 2002, Personality and job performance: test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives, Journal of Applied Psychology vol. 87, pp. 43-51. Hakstian, A R & Ng, E 2005, Employment related motivational distortion: its nature, measurement, and reduction, Educational and Psychological Measurement vol. 65, pp. 405–441. Hough, L M & Ones, D 2002, The structure, measurement, validity, and use of personality variables in industrial, work, and organizational psychology. In N. Anderson, D. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology, volume 1: Personnel psychology (pp. 233–277). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hurtz, G & Donovan, J 2000, Personality and job performance: the big five revisited, Journal of Applied Psychology vol. 85, pp. 869–879. Judge, T A, Higgins, C A, Thoresen, C J, & Barrick, M R 1999, The big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span, Personnel Psychology vol. 52, pp. 621–652. Rothstein, M G & Goffin, R D 2006, The use of personality measures in personnel selection: what does current research support? Human Resource Management Review vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 155–180. Read More