Human Assets

A significant criticism of research into the predictive qualities of the Big Five personality dimensions (traits) and GMA (abilities) is that it does not address how subjective opinions regarding the way this is gathered can affect the selection decision.

Current research led by Filip Lievens at Ghent University, Belgium, was motivated by the assumption that supervisor judgements of the importance of traits and abilities in applicant profiles would depend greatly on supervisors' perceptions of the source of the trait and ability information.  Generally, research into subjective perceptions of selection methods reveals that supervisors place more faith in unstructured interviews as opposed to paper-and-pencil tests in gaining information about traits and abilities even though substantial research indicates the latter to be more valid predictors of future job performance.  Why?  Well, as Hastie & Dawes put it; "People have a great misplaced confidence in their own (and others') global judgments, a confidence that is strong enough to dismiss an entire body of research findings and to dominate predictions".

The researchers asked over two hundred retail sales managers to rate the hirability of 43 applicant profiles based on information gained from either an interview or a paper-and-pencil test. Each sales manager was asked to rate the relative importance of the data (traits versus abilities) and whether or not they would hire the candidate.

In general, the managers tended to rate the information obtained via the unstructured interview as holding more weight than the information obtained from the paper-and-pencil tests. Thus, managers were placing more importance on data gleaned from a method which has been proven to be less predictive of success than other, more robust techniques.

 

 

Clearly, this research offers some interesting findings. In a carpenter's workshop, it is no use giving an apprentice some good quality tools and materials and asking them to produce a fine, ornately carved piece of furniture without training them to do so. Similarly, whilst it is crucial to implement robust selection techniques such as psychometric tests, assessment centres and the like, it is important to ensure that those who use them are trained to use them effectively.

With effective training in the methodology and practice of psychometric tools such as personality questionnaires, and an understanding of inherent decision making processes, we can avoid breeding a science-practice gap - what works in the academic world can and must work in the commercial world.

How Human Assets can help...

 

Human Assets are a team of Occupational Psychologists specialising in robust techniques for assessing and selecting the best candidates for your company. However, we are aware that it is you and your managers that must ultimately make the decision whether or not to hire. As such, we place great importance on the effective training of your managers to be equipped with the appropriate knowledge and skills to make accurate selection decisions. Human Assets can help you to bridge the gap between science and practice.

Human Assets can help by:

 

 

Lievens, F. Highhouse, S. & De Corte, W. (2005). The importance of traits and abilities in supervisors' hirability decisions as a function of method of assessment. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 78, 453-470.

 

Newsletter: December 2005