THE PREDICTION OF MANAGERIAL PERFORMANCE: A REVIEW<sup>1</sup>

Korman, Abraham K.

doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1968.tb02032.x

Cited by 86 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Over the years there have been many challenges to the use of clinical integration methods (Dawes, 1979; Dawes, Faust, & Meehl, 1989; Garb, 1994; Grove & Meehl, 1996; Sawyer, 1966; Wiggins, 1973, 1981) and some defenders (Holt, 1958, 1970; Holtzman, 1960; Hunt, 1959; Jeanneret & Silzer, 1998b; Korman, 1968; Levinson, 1998; Zedlow, 2009). Sawyer's review (1966) clarified some issues by making a distinction between data collection and data combination.…”

Section: How Effective Is Individual Psychological Assessment?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual Psychological Assessment: A Practice and Science in Search of Common Ground

Silzer

Jeanneret²

2011

Ind. organ. psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the past 30 years, individual psychological assessment (IPA) has gained in use and in value to organizations in the management of human resources. However, even though IPA is considered a core competency for industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology, its practice is not without critics. This article is written not only to address several criticisms of IPA but also to discuss a variety of issues that must be taken into consideration if IPA is to advance as a major component of the I–O scientist–practitioner model. We rely upon a working definition of IPA in general but, when possible, focus on executive assessment in particular, given its high level of complexity and growing popularity. We discuss the effectiveness of assessment practice, including the ongoing statistical versus clinical prediction argument and the difficulties with establishing validity. Although we are confident that IPA has many strong research and practice underpinnings, we also propose some important research questions, training guidelines, and opportunities for assessing psychologists to improve their practices.

show abstract

Section: How Effective Is Individual Psychological Assessment?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual Psychological Assessment: A Practice and Science in Search of Common Ground

Silzer

Jeanneret²

2011

Ind. organ. psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Korman, 1968Korman, , 1970. Their effectiveness as a source of feedback that results in a positive change in the behavior of colleagues has yet to be investigated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

The Relative Effectiveness of External, Peer, and Self‐Coaches

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deux recherches poursuivies sur deux continents ont fait appel à deux variables dépendantes différentes pour étudier l'efficacité relative du coach externe, du pair coach et de l'autocoaching sur la performance des participants (maîtrise de gestion). La première investigation concernait trente étudiants en gestion canadiens. Ceux qui étaient suivis par un coach extérieur présentaient une meilleure adaptation au travail collectif que ceux qui avaient un pair pour coach. La seconde recherche portait sur 23 managers en gestion australiens. Ceux qui étaient suivis soit par un coach externe, soit par eux-même, ont obtenu des résultats significativement plus élevés que ceux qui étaient accompagnés par un pair. Dans les deux études, le coach externe avait aux yeux de l'intéressé une plus grande crédibilité que le pair. Dans la seconde étude, l'autocoaching était mieux vu que le coaching du pair. La satisfaction relative à l'ensemble du processus était plus forte chez les managers pourvus d'un coach externe.Two studies in two different continents using two different dependent variables examined the relative effectiveness of external, peer, and self-coaches on the performance of participants in two MBA programs. The first study involved MBA students in Canada ( n = 30). Those who were coached by an external coach exhibited higher teamplaying behavior than did those who were coached by peers. The second study involved EMBA managers in Australia ( n = 23).Those who were either coached by an external coach or who were self-coached had significantly higher grades than those who were coached by a peer. In both studies, an external coach was perceived by the participants to have higher credibility than their peers. In the second study, self-coaching was perceived to be more credible than coaching from peers. Satisfaction with the coaching process was highest among the managers who had an external coach.

show abstract

“…was noted by Korman (1968) who acknowledged the explanatory problem by suggesting the need for "systematic testing rather than a scattered, buckshot approach" (p. 31 8). Miner (1968) concluded that the explanation of the advantage of peer ratings over other selection or prediction methods was purely "conjectural."…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%