Page 297 - Discrimination at Work The Psychological and Organizational Bases

STONE-ROMERO
264
Psychology who performed individual assessments to report on the meth­
ods they used. Results showed that 84.7% of the respondents reported
using personality inventories for selection purposes.
Person-Organization Fit The degree of fit between people and their em­
ploying organizations (P-O fit) has been the focus of a considerable amount
of theoretical and empirical work. A major theme in this body of literature
is that enhancing the degree of P-O fit can yield a number of benefits (e.g.,
greater job satisfaction, improved performance, decreased turnover, en­
hanced organizational commitment). Of considerable relevance to the P-O
fit issue is Schneider's (1987) ASA (attraction-selection-attrition) model.
It suggests that organizations operate so as to (a) attract and select indi­
viduals who fit (e.g., in terms of their personality), and (b) encourage the
attrition of people who don't fit. Unfortunately, even though the maximiza­
tion of P-O fit may lead to a number of positive outcomes, it can also prove
quite dysfunctional in terms of several criteria, one of which is the capacity
of the organization to adapt to changing internal and external conditions
and ultimately to survive (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Schneider, 1987; Stone &
Stone-Romero, 2004; Stone-Romero, Stone, & Salas, 2003).
Team Formation There are several ways in which personality may be
taken into account in team formation efforts. For example, the logic of the
ASA model (Schneider, 1987) suggests that in forming teams, there may be
overt efforts to maximize the degree of fit among team members in terms
of personality variables. However, this may not be wise because in forming
teams, it is important to have individuals with compatible, as opposed to
similar, personalities (in terms of their need orientations; Schutz, 1958).
Whatever the strategy used in forming teams, it is clear that personality
variables are often considered implicitly or explicitly It also is clear that
team members who have personalities that differ from extant prototypes
of the ideal team member can experience a host of role-related problems
(Stone & Stone-Romero 2004; Stone-Romero et al., 2003).
360 Degree Feedback Unlike traditional performance appraisal in which
a supervisor provides ratings of the performance of his or her subordi­
nates, in 360 degree feedback the target receives feedback from superi­
ors, peers, and subordinates. The dimensions along which 360 feedback is
given often extend far beyond job performance itself. Thus, targets may
receive feedback from others on their personality, interpersonal style, and
a host of other variables. Unfortunately, when feedback about personality
is provided to targets, it is often based upon unsophisticated assessments
by feedback agents. As such, the same feedback is likely to be invalid.
To the degree that it is invalid, it may have a number of negative conse­
quences for targets (e.g., lead to losses in self-esteem and motivation to
perform).