Page 82 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

the role of personality scales in the development and progress 61
dCDC seminar follows the rule of thumb: N = number of open positions for department
managers + 30%.
If possible, the personnel manager participates in assessment center feedback. Within
four weeks after the seminar, participants and the responsible superiors engage in a man-
agement development conversation. Based on that, they find an agreement over concrete
development measures for the employee and the employee’s superior. The management
committee is then informed about how the personnel managers classified participants.
They also get information about the seminar results, the development portfolio and the
planned development plans for each participant. This committee then decides on the
appointment of ‘immediate potential’ and the re-classification of ‘short-term potentials’
and ‘long-term potentials.’ If necessary, the committee recommends further development
programs or projects for the promotion of the potentials.

THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY SCALES IN THE DEVELOPMENT
AND PROGRESS TOWARD A SENIOR MANAGEMENT POSITION

THE BACKGROUND FOR USING PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS

In recent years, personality tests have made substantial progress in psychometric quality
(statistical rigor) and face validity (test-taker attitudes and acceptance of tests). Simul-
taneously, the use of personality testing in personnel selection is growing (Robertson &
Kinder, 1993). Barrick and Mount (1993) note in their meta-analysis that, in studies,
some of the scales used to measure personality (e.g., MMPI clinical scales) were not
designed to predict job performance in normal populations; therefore they might not be
expected to show good validity for job-related criteria. Some of the recent instruments
for normal personality are more predictive. They are based on research findings such
as the “big five” personality factors, others are self-report personality inventories fo-
cused on occupationally relevant (as opposed to clinically relevant) factors, such as the
Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ) (Saville, Holdsworth, Nyfield, Cramp, &
Mabey, 1984).
Personality constructs as well as General Mental Ability (GMA) tests have been
shown to be valid predictors of job performance in numerous settings and for a wide
range of criterion types (Mount, Witt, & Barrick, 2000). During the 1990s research has
shown quite consistently that at least some personality measures are valid predictors of
performance (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Salgado, 1997; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein,
1991). According to Mount et al. (2000), validities of personality constructs have been
shown to differ depending on the nature of the job and the type of criteria, but each has
been shown to be a valid predictor when linked to appropriate criteria.
Different authors discuss the applicability of personality scales in selection as well as
in development (e.g., Hossiep, Paschen, & M¨uhlhaus, 2000; Paschen & Hossiep, 1999).
The dCDC process applies psychological tests assessing personality and cognitive ability
or GMA. Support for the use of psychological tests supplementing the MD system is
the finding that the criterion-related validity of leadership or managerial potential (in an
assessment center) provides useful information, and we know that multiple information
sourcesprovideabetterpictureaboutone’sfutureleadershipfunctions(Sarges,2000).By
using dCDC, a rich broad picture or perspective of a person emerges from a “diagnostic
triad” (Deller, 2000):