PERSONALITY AND PREDICTION OF PERFORMANCE IN THE WORKPLACE PERSONALITY AND PREDICTION
Likes 0
Name | PERSONALITY AND PREDICTION OF PERFORMANCE IN THE WORKPLACE PERSONALITY AND PREDICTION |
|---|---|
| Publication date | 2005 |
| Author 1 | |
| Author 2 | |
| Author 3 | |
| Author 4 | |
| Author 5 | |
| Author 6 | |
| Published In | |
| Abstract | Concerning the use of personality in personnel selection and evaluation, the last decade has seen important advances made in several domains. An important one was the development of the Big Five as a valid framework within which researchers and organizations can pursue their research and applications. The Big Five combined with meta-analytic methods allowed researchers to answer many of the questions left unaddressed for many years. Today, confidence in personality and its measures give a new dynamic both to theory development and applications. Further research will need to show the benefits of linking specific, lower-level facets of the Big Five to specific, lower-level criteria of performance. This paper gives an overview of the use of personality in the prediction of performance and suggests directions for future research |
| TagCloud | persosnality; performance; workplace; task performance; environment; context |
| Méthodoogy & Field of research (targeted population & number) | AFC |
| Discussion | |
| Limites | few traits need to be more documented (agreableness) |
| Ouverture / Perspective | even if the Big Five gives a solid framework to the study of personality and its predictability of performance at work, certain factors from the Big Five seem not to have received sufficient attention in the literature. For example, when compared to extraversion (introver- sion) or emotional stability (neuroticism), the factor agreeableness is less documented in terms of predictive data in performance in the workplace. To explain that, Graziano and Eisenberg (1997) reported that agreeableness has undergone many changes in its lexical definition, starting with conformity (Fiske, 1949), then friendly conformity, or hostile non-conformity (Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981). Also recently, Jonhson and Ostendorf (1993) reported that the factor agreeableness could be, depending on the type of factor analysis used in a lexical study, closer to the dimension of “conforming to others’ wishes” or “possessing a pleasant disposition”. Clearly, this factor needs to mobilize attention in its definition (and expression) within a culture, and its impact on performance in organizations. |
| Conclusion | predictive scheme seems to be better in context performance than in task specific performance New questions concerning measures of personality with lower-order constructs, global (international) definitions, and more attention to the construct and measurement of performance in organizations will refine our knowledge on the “right” use of personality in the workplace. |
| Figure |
User reviews and comments