2003
DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.100
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective.

Abstract: The authors used socioanalytic theory to understand individual differences in people's performance at work. Specifically, if predictors and criteria are aligned by using theory, then the meta-analytic validity of personality measures exceeds that of atheoretical approaches. As performance assessment moved from general to specific job criteria, all Big Five personality dimensions more precisely predicted relevant criterion variables, with estimated true validities of .43 (Emotional Stability), .35 (Extraversion… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

44
716
4
13

Year Published

2003
2003
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 700 publications
(784 citation statements)
references
References 101 publications
44
716
4
13
Order By: Relevance
“…As such, finegrained conceptualizations can provide a better understanding of relationships between specific predictors and specific aspects of performance (Hogan & Holland, 2003;Johnson, 2001;Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000;Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). Since our research focused on engineering professionals working in teams, we focused on two types of performance critical to working in groups (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993Coleman & Borman, 2000;Organ, 1997;Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996): task performance and citizenship performance.…”
Section: Task Performance and Citizenship Performancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…As such, finegrained conceptualizations can provide a better understanding of relationships between specific predictors and specific aspects of performance (Hogan & Holland, 2003;Johnson, 2001;Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000;Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). Since our research focused on engineering professionals working in teams, we focused on two types of performance critical to working in groups (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993Coleman & Borman, 2000;Organ, 1997;Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996): task performance and citizenship performance.…”
Section: Task Performance and Citizenship Performancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, recent meta-analytic reviews indicate a need to expand the explications of the criterion domain of both in-role job performance (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000) and discretionary work performance (Hoffman, Blair, Meriac, & Woehr, 2007). While theories of work performance have already incorporated personality, there is a recent call for more sophisticated theory based research that matches specifi c personality constructs to different dimensions of performance (Bartram, 2005;Hogan & Holland, 2003;Johnson, 2003). In addition, it has been argued that personality and performance are distal constructs and any meaningful connection between the two are mediated and moderated by a number of situational factors that vary across contexts (Barrick, Parks, & Mount, 2005;Barrick, Stewart, & Piotrowski, 2002;Hochwarter, Witt, & Kacmar, 2000;Witt, Burke, Barrick, & Mount, 2002).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Five Factor Model's (i.e., Big Five) emergence as a widely accepted taxonomy of normal personality in the ensuing decades has helped address many of the skeptics' concerns. By serving as a guide for organizing research findings and framing hypotheses, the model has enabled researchers using meta-analysis to shed new light on the relationships between personality characteristics and job performance (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991;Mount & Barrick, 1995;Hogan & Holland, 2003). The validity of the Big Five personality factors has been evaluated for a number of job groups, including managerial, sales, customer service, skilled, and semi-skilled roles (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991;Hurtz & Donovan, 2000).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%