Ability assessments help identify employees who can do the work but it does not guarantee that they will be loyal, pleasant, reliable, and cooperative.

Dimensions of Job Performance

Traditionally, good performance was measured by how accurately and efficiently the job was done which is called task performance.  For example, suppose our employee, Anita was rated a ‘top performer’ because on an average she sold 50 units a week.  In contrast, co-worker Mary is considered a ‘low-level performer’ because her sales averaged only 20 units a week.

Contextual performance are employee efforts that influences the overall effectiveness of the job and organization, but may not specifically be part of the job description

“Big Five” the Five Factor Model of Personality
   Openness to experience,
   Conscientiousness,
   Extraversion,
   Agreeableness,
   Neuroticism

Table 1: The “Big Five” measure of personality

What Do Personality Measures Predict?

Just as cognitive ability predicts task performance, personality measures have been found to predict contextual performance.  Employees who score high on theconscientiousness dimension are more likely to follow instructions, have lower absenteeism records, and less likely to engage in unethical behaviors (Barrick & Mount, 1991, Ones, Vishweshwaran, & Schmitt, 1993).  Employees low on conscientiousness may engage in theft, file bogus worker compensation claims, and stay away from work without notice.  Agreeable employees are more cooperative and considerate of their coworkers, where as those who score low on this dimension are likely to be self-centered and unhelpful.  Similarly, employees assessed as emotionally stable are better able to handle stress and maintain calmness when faced with crisis or challenging situations such as dealing with irate customers.  Less emotionally stable employees are likely to have emotional outbursts and feel incapacitated when faced with challenges.  Conscientiousness, emotional stability, and agreeableness have been found to be predictive of job performance across various job types (e.g. sales personnel, customer service positions, police officers, managerial positions, skilled and unskilled workers).  Employees assessed to be extraverted are more energetic, persuasive, and out-going.  Employees who score higher on this dimension have been found to be most successful in sales and managerial positions.  Research on openness to experience shows that this dimension is most predictive of performance in Sales positions.

A sizable proportion of research has focused on understanding service professionals. Across several studies it has been found that individuals who are customer service oriented are more likely to be resilient and even tempered; cautious, goal directed, and thoughtful; willing to cooperate and defer to others; willing to adhere to strict standards of conduct; interested in helping others and providing service (Costa & McCrae, 1985, Costa, McCrae, & Dye, 1991; Hogan & Hogan, 1992). These dimensions have been successfully predicted using measures of Conscientiousness, emotional stability, agreeableness, and extraversion. Cognitive ability measures, which are frequently used for candidate assessment, have been largely unsuccessful for predicting service orientation (McDaniel & Frei, 1994). Experts recommend that personality measures offer unique advantages for selecting employees into positions that require contextual performance.

A few critics have questioned the organizational importance of contextual performance; especially because it is easy to see how higher task performance is linked with higher productivity and organizational profits. Such linkages are less apparent for contextual performance. The research that has begun in this area is affirming. One study found a sizeable (.33, p<.05) correlation between contextual behaviors such as helping customers with their problems and courtesy and sales performance of the stores included in the study (George & Bettenhausen, 1990). It is not difficult to see why this would be the case. Customers who feel they were treated poorly and did not get the service they deserved are likely to take their business to the competitor who has better service. Satisfied customers on the other hand, are more likely to return for future services and also bring in new business through favorable referrals. In summary, all evidence point toward the positive benefits of assessing and selecting for contextual performance and such practices are highly recommend by experts.

Side Benefits of Using Personality

​In addition to predicting important work criteria, personality measures have many other benefits.  One of the most critical benefits relates to the issue of adverse impact.  Research shows that personality measures have less adverse impact compared to cognitive ability tests.  It is well documented that African Americans score the lowest in cognitive ability tests compared to other ethnic groups.  The appropriate combination of cognitive ability test scores with personality test scores can result in a fair and legally defensible selection system.  It can also help organizational diversity goals, by identifying minorities who are likely to be excellent performers, but may have been overlooked by considering only cognitive ability.

Another important benefit is that assessing for contextual performance has a wide range of applicability.  Unlike task performance, which requires specific ability assessments to achieve a more targeted match of the candidate with the job, contextual performance is less likely to vary across jobs.  Even as the job changes the characteristics for which employees were originally selected can still be relevant for performance in future jobs.  When personality measures are used to select employees, the system is likely to do a better job of predicting future job performance than job-specific knowledge tests.  The long-term benefits of selecting candidates based on personality assessment are numerous.

Organizational Uses of Personality Measures

​​Given all this evidence, why have many organizations steered away from using personality measures for selection? One reason may be that historically, personality measures were found to be weakly associated with job performance, hence, they were rarely used. However, recent advancements in the conception and measurement of personality factors, as well as, job performance have dispelled previous concerns. As discussed above, there is a growing body of evidence that support the predictive ability of personality measures.

Another concern relates to intentional distortion of responses and its influence on predictive validity. Most personality instruments rely on a self-descriptive report for their assessment. One problem with self-descriptors is that individuals may misrepresent themselves to appear more favorable. This may lead to an inaccurate assessment. However, for well-validated personality instruments such distortions in responses have not been found to reduce the predictive ability of the measures (e.g., Ones, Vishveswaran, & Schmitt, 1993; Hough, Eaton, Dunnette, Kamp, & McCloy, 1990; Christiansen, Goffin, Johnston, Rothstein, 1994).

Some have raised concerns on the job relatedness of the items presented in personality scales. The reason for this is that initial use of personality instruments in the workplace leverages tools developed for general purposes. At the surface level, many of the items in those scales (e.g., Prefer reading non-fiction to fiction) seemed to bear no relevance for work settings. Additionally, personality was believed to have a weak relation to job performance. As a result, there weren’t many researchers developing work-related personality measures. It was only in the early nineties, that advances in measurement science and computing power allowed Industrial and Organizational Psychologists to identify meaningful and statistically significant relationships between personality and workplace behaviors. Since then several globally validated and work related scales have been developed. This work has been primarily undertaken by consulting firms specializing in recruitment/selection work and can be purchased for commercial use.

Conclusion

​​Using a personality test for selection decision can have an impact on the quality of employees hired as well as on organizational effectiveness. First, personality assessment helps identify characteristics critical for contextual job performance. Contextual performance is the most critical driver of customer service quality. Employees who engage in contextual activities are not only high performers but collectively, their performance contributes to customer satisfaction, loyalty and economic value creation. Second, personality measures have less adverse impact compared to cognitive ability tests. Combining personality testing with cognitive ability testing (tool most predictive of task performance) can lead to a fair and legally defensible selection processes. By reducing the chance of adverse impact against minorities, organizations reduce the likelihood of being flagged for legal compliance. Moreover, as institutions improve their ability to identify successful minority candidates they can contribute to positive social change.

On the deployment side, organizations should be careful in the selection of an appropriate instrument. It must be validated and relevant for work settings. Additionally, each organization should conduct a person-oriented job analysis to show job relevance of contextual activities and also conduct an in-house validation study. Such practices can ensure legal defensibility as well as justify the time and expense associated with the selection process.

Bibliography

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman’s and Associate’s Personnel Selection in Organizations (pp. 71-98), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Christiansen, N. D., Goffin, R. D., Johnston, N. G., & Rothstein, M. G. (1994). Correcting the 16PF for faking: Effect on criterion related validities and the individual hiring decision. Personnel Psychology, 46, 295-311.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO personality inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales of agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO personality inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 887-898.

George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, and turnover: A group level analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 698-709.

Hogan, R. & Hogan, J. (1992). Hogan Personality Inventory Manual. Tulsa: Hogan Assessment Systems.

Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterion related validities of personality constructs and the effects of response distortion on those validities [Monograph]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581-595.

McDaniel, M. A., & Frei, R. L. (1994). Validity of customer service measures in personnel selection: A meta-analysis. Unpublished manuscript, University of Akron.

Ones, D. S., Vishveswaran, C., & Schmitt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories for job performance [Monograph]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 679-703.