Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
IN SUPPORT OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT IN ORGANIZATIONAL SETTINGS
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
IN SUPPORT OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT IN ORGANIZATIONAL SETTINGS
Do you wish to request the book?
IN SUPPORT OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT IN ORGANIZATIONAL SETTINGS
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
IN SUPPORT OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT IN ORGANIZATIONAL SETTINGS
2007
Overview
Personality constructs have been demonstrated to be useful for explaining and predicting attitudes, behaviors, performance, and outcomes in organizational settings. Many professionally developed measures of personality constructs display useful levels of criterion‐related validity for job performance and its facets. In this response to Morgeson et al. (2007), we comprehensively summarize previously published meta‐analyses on (a) the optimal and unit‐weighted multiple correlations between the Big Five personality dimensions and behaviors in organizations, including job performance; (b) generalizable bivariate relationships of Conscientiousness and its facets (e.g., achievement orientation, dependability, cautiousness) with job performance constructs; (c) the validity of compound personality measures; and (d) the incremental validity of personality measures over cognitive ability. Hundreds of primary studies and dozens of meta‐analyses conducted and published since the mid 1980s indicate strong support for using personality measures in staffing decisions. Moreover, there is little evidence that response distortion among job applicants ruins the psychometric properties, including criterion‐related validity, of personality measures. We also provide a brief evaluation of the merits of alternatives that have been offered in place of traditional self‐report personality measures for organizational decision making. Given the cumulative data, writing off the whole domain of individual differences in personality or all self‐report measures of personality from personnel selection and organizational decision making is counterproductive for the science and practice of I‐O psychology.
Publisher
Blackwell Publishing Inc,Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Subject
