Page 65 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

44 ability and non-ability predictors of job performance
framework (e.g., personal initiative), studies must also contain performance measures
that assess corresponding aspects of the criterion domain (e.g., entrepreneurial behav-
iors). To date, evidence for the general predictive validity of ability and non-ability
measures is often provided by assessing predictor–performance relations across occu-
pational groupings that confound status, job conditions, prior experience and skills, and
task requirements (e.g., professionals, managers, sales). In the contemporary workplace,
such occupational groupings may be less useful than groupings based on job environ-
ments (e.g., Holland & Gottfredson, 1992) or an analysis of job demands. In the USA,
for example, Schneider, Ackerman, and Kanfer (1996) suggested that the growth of
service sector jobs has placed increasing emphasis on an individual’s “people skills”
(cf. Schneider et al., 1996). How to map such ill-defined job skill requirements to the
person predictor domain is not obvious. Recent work by Mount et al. (1998), for ex-
ample, shows differential validity of select personality traits for teamwork and dyadic
service interactions. Future research to investigate the possible differential validities of
particular ability and non-ability traits as a function of the type of “people skills”, “work
styles”, “learning styles”, or “self-management skills” required in present-day jobs is
likely to be particularly informative.
Another issue in the personality–job performance domain pertains to the current
scarcity of data addressing the question of “how and why” broad individual differ-
ences in non-ability traits influence job performance. For example, meta-analytic find-
ings provide convergent evidence for the positive influence of conscientiousness on
job performance. But relatively little is known about why individuals who are higher
in conscientiousness are better employees beyond the notion that good traits go to-
gether (Thorndike, 1940; Ackerman & Humphreys, 1990). Kanfer et al. (1995) posited
that “distal” traits such as conscientiousness influence job performance through more
proximal self-regulatory processes. Although Mount and Barrick (1995) provide em-
pirical evidence to support this view, additional research is needed to “unpack” the
observed predictor–criterion relations. That is, what aspects of conscientiousness (e.g.,
achievement orientation, dependability, reliability, tolerance for authority) are most im-
portant? Further, how do these trait tendencies operate on dimensions of performance?
For example, it may be that conscientiousness exerts a differential influence on dif-
ferent performance dimensions, such that higher levels of conscientiousness exert a
positive effect on work attendance and compliance with organizational policies, but lit-
tle effect on dimensions of performance involving intellectual tasks such as abstraction,
reasoning, or innovation (cf. non-significant relations between conscientiousness and
cognitive ability, Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997). Research into these issues helps to
further refine the nomological network of constructs linking person and job performance
constructs.
A final concern pertains to the emerging literature investigating the joint and incremen-
tal predictive validities of ability, personality, and other personnel selection tools such
as biodata and interviews. To date, although recent investigations by Mount et al. (2000)
and Cortina et al. (2000) show the independent predictive validity and potential value of
biodata and structured interview instruments, little is known about the unique elements
of the predictor space that such measures appear to assess. Cortina et al. (2000), for
example, suggested that structured interviews may tap job knowledge and/or individual
differences in job task experiences.