Personality as Predictor

1 Personality as Predictor Introduction The business context in which organizations operate is becoming increasingly complex, and business organizations are confronted with increasing uncertainty, turbulence, and transition in the external environment. One of the strategies that businesses apply to overcome the challenge is recruiting effective personnel and recognizing the general cognitive ability (G) and personality measures as predictors of future job performance. Organizations use different tools in the hiring process and predict the employees’ success and contribution to organizational performance. The employees’ inherent behaviors and abilities would be a significant predictor of success.

Buy this excellently written paper or order a fresh one from acemyhomework.com

2 Personality and cognitive abilities are considered conventional predictors in determining job performance among employees serving in different categories (Mollick, 2012). In addressing the tools that are used to predict employee success, the discussion presents the measures of performance, the measurement of predictors, cross-comparative research examining the differences between using G and personality for predicting subsequent job performance and how employers may use these findings to make future decisions in the hiring process.

Measurement of Performance Employee performance measurement is the evaluation of an individual’s work based on objective quantitative ethics. Performance measurement is critical to understanding the employees' contribution to the business. Such evaluation may be instituted for every position in the organization, thereby creating a level playing field to determine individual contribution towards attaining the organizational goals. As noted by Mollick (2012), the performance and expected value regarding behaviors and actions is what every employer seeks to assess the expected value. Therefore, the employer has defined a set of behaviors that employees should demonstrate in their role and this is embedded in the organization’s code of conduct.

Fundamentally, the measurements of employee performance aim to define the job performance of personnel in terms of defining the overall expected value from employees’ behaviors and actions carried out over time (Rammstedt et al., 2018). Performance is considered an outcome of behavior, which is based on what employees do at work. Therefore, employees' actions are expected to derive value to the organization, whereby employee behavior may be judged based on the extent to which they help or hinder the organization and the outcomes of those behaviors on organizational performance.

3 Employee performance measurement can also be described based on the contexts of task performance and contextual performance. Task performance is considered as the actions that have a direct impact on the transformation of raw materials to goods and services, whereas contextual performance features employees' behaviors that contribute to the overall effectiveness of the organization through support in both the social and psychological context where work is done. The outcome of employee performance measurement is used to gauge how employees’ actions contribute to organizational effectiveness (Rammstedt et al., 2018). Results are closely linked to organizational goals thus employees are evaluated based on their contribution to the organization's wellbeing.

Measurement Predictors Various predictors are applied to measure employee performance. According to Rammstedt et al. (2018), personality traits are a vital personality measure of job performance.

Top organizations attract, select, and retain employees who will be a good fit for the organization. Organizations recruit employees who are similar in terms of educational qualification, personality, and vocational interests. Therefore, organizations utilize personality measures that allow them to determine employee potential in terms of those who make the most significant contribution to the organization.

Personality traits have been established as the best predictors of job performance.

According to Nikolaou et al. (2018), the five-factor model of personality traits for employee selection and recruitment includes emotional stability, extraversion, openness to experience, conscientiousness, and agreeableness. Whereas conscientiousness is considered a modest predictor of job performance, too much conscientiousness, and emotional stability could hurt job

4 performance because it restrains flexibility. Therefore, the use of personality tests for selection purposes alongside other measures is increasingly being used to identify talented applicants.

In addition to personality traits, cognitive measures are also used to measure a candidate's cognitive skills. Organizations implement cognitive ability tests as part of a growing body of candidate screening tests that help identify better candidates and are idea in simplifying the recruitment process (Van der Linden et al., 2017). Cognitive tests can also be undertaken as preemployment aptitude tests that measure a candidate’s aptitude or ability to solve problems, process and apply information, learn new skills, and think critically. Cognitive tests are ideal as they are effective in measuring the candidates’ logical ability and reasoning, ensuring that the employees you recruit can think out of the box and make logical arguments backed by evidence.

Analysis of Cross-Comparative Research Examining Differences between G and Personality for Predicting Subsequent Job Performance Theories on leadership and management portray the decision based on mindset and values, and different studies have been undertaken to measure the impact of personality on job performance and implement proxies to aid in making hiring decisions. Proxies to assist in making hiring decisions making would be focused on pre-interview questioning to conduct background checks and determine job or life experiences that coincide with the job position applied for. In examining the differences between G and personality for predicting subsequent job performance, Van Zyl and De Bruin (2018) argue that despite the prevalent use of personality inventories in selecting personnel, non-cognitive predictors are valid and can be used to predict personality than G alone.

According to Nikolaou et al. (2018), the validity of broad personality traits to determine the suitability of an employee for a role is still low, taking into consideration that sometimes

5 personality traits are inappropriately chosen. More recent research has established a disconnect between G and personality or the use of one predictor over another regarding assessment and personnel selection. Thus, employers could find a way to use both G and personality to predict job performance.

As noted by Russell and Woods (2020), there is a disconnect between G and personality whereby one predicted can be used over another in assessing personnel selection. Thus, both indicators can be applied to predict job performance. In a study conducted by Kanfer et al.

(2010) to determine the ability and trait complex of academic and job performance, the results indicate that both ability and non-ability trait composites are significant predictors of job satisfaction, performance, and turnover. The position is also affirmed by Van der Linden et al.

(2017). They affirm the use of a combination of agreeableness, conscientiousness, optimism, and numerical ability to determine the ability of employees to excel in their roles. Composite predictors have been established as closely lined with job performance and job satisfaction to determine the ability to excel in their roles.

Use of the Findings for Future Decision Making New methods and trends in recruiting such as auditions, gaming techniques, and challenges are now being increasingly applied to help to hire and predict the ‘right’ person for the job. As asserted by Cherry (2016), analytics are now being used to measure employees’ abilities and will continually be used to offer holistic approach to measuring employees’ performance. Indeed, an employer may use the general cognitive abilities and personality measures to predict future job performance for future decision making in the hiring process.

Findings from the analysis have established a significant correlation between organizational

6 performance or outcomes and effective prediction of personality and cognitive skills as measures for determining performance.

Employers can effectively use predictive assessment to gauge employees during the recruitment process and ensure only the most qualified and talented employees join the organization. It is a general concession that individual traits vary based on one person to another, which is also distinct in terms of jobs and settings. An employer seeking to recruit personnel can apply the addressed predictors in terms of personality traits and cognitive abilities to select the most suitable employees to join the organization. Employers often seek to recruit employees who have a prediction that they could perform well. Therefore, they should consider an adaptive framework that measures both G and personality in their recruitment process. The approach works by first seeking to determine the specific measures aligned with the job role and tasks to accomplish and the organizational goals they should help accomplish. Therefore, employers have viable tools within their reach to determine the best candidates to make informed hiring decisions.

From the preceding discussion, it is evident that there are varying opinions regarding the best predictors for job performance, particularly when making hiring decisions. However, as research studies progress, there is a continued attempt to establish measures that relate consistent individual differences in personality to individual differences in cognition, both from an empirical and theoretical perspective. However, these predictors are unique to each organization, and companies seek to select the best fit in terms of personality and cognitive abilities concerning the job role. Identifying and recruiting the highest performers is most significant for the organization to remain competitive in the market to remain competitive and achieve organizational roles. As guided by effective research guidelines, organizations should select

7 activities and assessments that facilitate evidence-based processes to implement personality and cognitive predictors to recruit the most suitable candidates to join the organization. Nonetheless, the application of these evidence-based is yet to gain prominence because of inconsistency in terms of ambiguity regarding the prediction of the measures.

References Cherry, M. A. (2016). People analytics and invisible labor. Louis ULJ, 61, 1.

Kanfer, R., Wolf, M. B., Kantrowitz, T. M., & Ackerman, P. L. (2010). Ability and trait complex predictors of academic and job performance: A Person–Situation approach. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 59(1), 40-69. doi:10.1111/j.14640597.2009.00415.x

8 Mollick, E. (2012). People and process, suits and innovators: The role of individuals in firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33(9), 1001-1015. doi:10.1002/smj.1958 Nikolaou, I., Foti, K., Zeigler-Hill, V., & Shackelford, T. K. (2018). Personnel selection and personality. In The SAGE handbook of personality and individual differences (pp. 659677). Sage.

Rammstedt, B., Lechner, C. M., & Danner, D. (2018). Relationships between personality and cognitive ability: A facet-level analysis. Journal of Intelligence, 6(2), 28.

Russell, E., & Woods, S. A. (2020). Personality differences as predictors of action-goal relationships in work-email activity. Computers in Human Behavior, 103, 67-79.

Van der Linden, D., Pekaar, K. A., Bakker, A. B., Schermer, J. A., Vernon, P. A., Dunkel, C. S., & Petrides, K. V. (2017). Overlap between the general factor of personality and emotional intelligence: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 143(1), 36.

Van Zyl, C. J. J., & De Bruin, G. P. (2018). Predicting counterproductive work behavior with narrow personality traits: A nuanced examination using quantile regression. Personality and Individual Differences, 131, 45-50.

Reflection The paper addressed general cognitive abilities and personality measures as predictors of future job performance. The aspects addressed include the measurements of performance, measurement of predictors and analysis of the cross-comparative research examining the differences between using G and personality for predicting subsequent job performance. The

9 report has also put forward proposal on how an employer might use the findings for future decision making in the hiring process.

The changes I made include adding that the performance and expected value regarding behaviors and actions is what every employer seeks to assess the expected value. The position was added to the predictors of job performance to showcase the use of employee behavior as a measure of performance. I used the statement to show how organizations have developed a set of values depicting employee performance as an element of behavior regulation as defined in organizational culture.

I also made corrections in grammar and use of punctuation marks as well as going through the entire document to ensure logical flow of the writing. I also made changes in reference to the use of citations to ensure that all major arguments presented were backed up with evidence from research. More so, I made a verification of the citations entries to ensure that each reference was included in the in-text citations to back up the arguments presented. I also added an assertive statement on the application of cognitive tests as ideal predictors of employee ability in terms of measuring the candidates’ logical ability and reasoning. I have also added content to show how new trends in recruiting such as auditions, gaming techniques, and challenges are now being increasingly applied to help to hire and predict the ‘right’ person for the job. I have also highlighted how there is an increasing trend by organizations to use multiple recruiting methods to get the best employees to join the organization.