Discussion: View Thread

Contrary, to an earlier posting on this list, there is a wealth of research literature showing
a variety of traits that distinguish productive workers from less productive workers. Those
who claim otherwise are ignoring about 85 years of research. Such predictors include
intelligence, job knowledge, and personality traits such as conscientiousness.

Is anyone really willing to argue that smart people, who know much about their job and who are
dependable are not any better at their jobs than stupid people, with no job
knowledge, and who are screw offs?

A good summary of the extensive research base on this topic can be found in:

Schmidt, FL & Hunter, JE. (1998) The validity and utility of selection methods in
personnel psychology: practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research
findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274.

--
Michael A. McDaniel
Department of Management, School of Business
Virginia Commonwealth University
1015 Floyd Ave, PO Box 844000, Richmond VA 23284-4000
Voice: 804.827.0209 Fax: 804.828.1602

Mike,
The article you note does seem important. I gleaned the abstract from
http://www.apa.org/journals/bul/998ab.html#6
and it appears below.
Cybercollegially,
Charlie Wankel wankelc@stjohns.edu
listmaster mg-ed-dv

The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology:
Practical and Theoretical Implications of 85 Years of Research Findings

Frank L. Schmidt <frank-schmidt@uiowa.edu> and/or
<fschmidt@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>
University of Iowa

John E. Hunter
Michigan State University

This article summarizes the practical and theoretical implications of 85
years of research in personnel selection. On the basis of meta-analytic
findings, this article presents the validity of 19 selection procedures for
predicting job performance and training performance and the validity of
paired combinations of general mental ability (GMA) and the 18 other
selection procedures. Overall, the 3 combinations with the highest
multivariate validity and utility for job performance were GMA plus a work
sample test (mean validity of .63), GMA plus an integrity test (mean
validity of .65), and GMA plus a structured interview (mean validity of
.63). A further advantage of the latter 2 combinations is that they can be
used for both entry level selection and selection of experienced employees.
The practical utility implications of these summary findings are
substantial. The implications of these research findings for the development
of theories of job performance are discussed.

Psychological Bulletin, 1998, Vol. 124, No. 2, 262�274, �1998 American
Psychological Association

> -----Original Message-----
>
> Contrary, to an earlier posting on this list, there is a wealth
> of research literature showing
> a variety of traits that distinguish productive workers from less
> productive workers.
>
> A good summary of the extensive research base on this topic can
> be found in:
>
> Schmidt, FL & Hunter, JE. (1998) The validity and utility of
> selection methods in
> personnel psychology: practical and theoretical implications of
> 85 years of research
> findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274.

But what about the intelligent ones who are not dependable and screwoffs and the less intelligent
(not "stupid" -- what a coarse appellation) who are dependable and do their jobs well?
Nonetheless, I appreciate the citation you provided.

Mike McDaniel wrote:

> Contrary, to an earlier posting on this list, there is a wealth of research literature showing
> a variety of traits that distinguish productive workers from less productive workers. Those
> who claim otherwise are ignoring about 85 years of research. Such predictors include
> intelligence, job knowledge, and personality traits such as conscientiousness.
>
> Is anyone really willing to argue that smart people, who know much about their job and who are
> dependable are not any better at their jobs than stupid people, with no job
> knowledge, and who are screw offs?
>
> A good summary of the extensive research base on this topic can be found in:
>
> Schmidt, FL & Hunter, JE. (1998) The validity and utility of selection methods in
> personnel psychology: practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research
> findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274.
>
> --
> Michael A. McDaniel
> Department of Management, School of Business
> Virginia Commonwealth University
> 1015 Floyd Ave, PO Box 844000, Richmond VA 23284-4000
> Voice: 804.827.0209 Fax: 804.828.1602

>Contrary, to an earlier posting on this list, there is a wealth of
>research literature showing
>a variety of traits that distinguish productive workers from less
>productive workers. Those
>who claim otherwise are ignoring about 85 years of research. Such
>predictors include
>intelligence, job knowledge, and personality traits such as conscientiousness.
>
>Is anyone really willing to argue that smart people, who know much about
>their job and who are
>dependable are not any better at their jobs than stupid people, with no job
>knowledge, and who are screw offs?
>

I think we have epistemological differences here. I read from above that
you follow an epistemology of intelligence. I follow an epistemology of
mind, thinking and personal/professional development. I have quite a
different set of assumptions about people, thinking and the demonstration
of knowledge.

The point of difference is whether you believe that once a person is judged
(and I use this word deliberately) by another to be "stupid, with no job
knowledge, and a screw-off", if they are FIXED into these very very
subjective categories. An epistemology of mind, thinking and development
argues that intelligence is not fixed - our cognitive skills can be taught.


How many so-called "stupid" people either a) haven't been properly taught
how to think b) process information differently from the traditional,
academic, way of processing information? I have worked with many people in
industry who are practical, hands-on people, who in many cases didn't do so
well at school (because for some they were practical, extroverted, of the
moment people for whom sitting and reading and writing for long period held
no interest), but who have tremendous mental ability for what they are
trained in, and for all things generally. They are intelligent! We excel
through what we are taught to excel in, and with the resources that we
have. The environmental factors, which Phil referred to.

Another point of departure on using intelligence and other 'personality
traits' as fixed properties, is that people change over time. We change
and develop through new experiences, challenges, and through reflection.
We learn all the time. We demonstrate our knowledges in different times
and places, and in response to different things. Therefore I would not put
much faith in the intelligence tests such as the Stanford-Binet, which is
widely known to be culturally biased anyway. Limiting ourselves to the
academic knowledges, which are white, which are male, which are middle
class, is doing ourselves and our organisations (if you're going to talk
about recruitment) a huge disservice. It also contributes to
discrimination and marginalisation and all the cultural conflicts which
arise from these. Don't think that how we run our organisations, and the
values present in our recruitment procedures, are in anyway separate from
our wider, societal problems.

When myself and my colleagues have asked industry participants if they
would recruit on the basis of IQ tests, they've loudly said 'No!' They
want to be able to recuit with criteria which is more holistic. They know
this means they need to ask for evidence of the qualities they want. They
know this doesn't mean subjective and unsubstantiated judgements. And
which criteria do they choose? They go for abilities which show people can
manage themselves and others, teamwork skills, technical abilities and
flexibility. All things which can be taught also.

Fiona Broadbent






Fiona Broadbent
Research Officer
Graduate School of Education
University of Queensland &
Fisher & Paykel (Cleveland)
Ph: (07) 3365 6643 / (07) 3286 8801

Mike McDaniel <MAMcDani@SATURN.VCU.EDU> wrote:
(Hi Mike)

>Contrary, to an earlier posting on this list, there
is a wealth of research literature showing a variety
of traits that distinguish productive workers
from less productive workers.<

True, but are all the traits common to all successful employees in
all jobs in all industries working for all bosses in all companies?
If the answer is no, is the research all that helpful?

Can people be successful without having all of these traits?
If the answer is yes, which people, which traits, which jobs?

>Those who claim otherwise are
ignoring about 85 years of research.<

Or maybe they have just moved beyond it.

>Such predictors include intelligence<

Are you suggesting that we ought to hire based on intelligence?
Seems to me the law is settled--we cannot set hiring standards
above that demanded by the job. In other words, lower mental ability
cannot be used to screen out applicants for jobs for which
higher mental abilities are not required by the job.
Wasn't it Griggs v. Duke Power?

>job knowledge<

Are you suggesting that we ought to hire the most knowledgable
job applicants? If we did, wouldn't we always hire the most educated
and most experienced? Why interview at all?

>and personality traits such as conscientiousness.<

Are you suggesting that we only hire applicants who are conscientious?
What about people who are less conscientious?

What a sad day it will be when people with lower mental abilities,
less education, less knowledge and less conscientiousness are
convinced that they are not worthy of a job because 85 years of
research shows that these traits are what is needed for job success.

Good thing entreprenuers don't know that they cannot succeed without
these so called success traits.

This thinking may be partly responsible for the 21% average turnover
rate during the first year for new hires in the US.

Our clients find that their most successful employees in some jobs
score considerably lower in mental ability than their less successful
co-workers in the same job who score much higher. Our clients also find
that very conscientious employees in some jobs are less successful than
their less conscientious co-workers in the same job. How can that be?

>Is anyone really willing to argue that smart people,
who know much about their job and who are dependable
are not any better at their jobs than stupid people,
with no job knowledge, and who are screw offs?<

Let me understand your point. You are comparing the job performance
of smart people--high IQ--who have job knowledge and who are dependable
to the job performance of stupid people--low IQ-- with no job knowledge
and who are screw offs? Yikes, who could argue with that.
Of course no one is seriously suggesting that.

I am suggesting however, all else being equal, that applicants with
greater mental abilities do not always become the best employees.
Yes, they may learn their jobs quicker but employers want not only
good performance over the short term but also over the long term as
well. Employers seem to want to train their new employees and then
have them stay on the job for a long time doing their jobs well,
and enjoying their jobs. Maybe our clients are different and since our
client list includes only about 0.25% of the 8,000,000+/- employers
in the US I think they just might be different.

Bob

>Contrary, to an earlier posting on this list, there is a wealth of research
literature showing
>a variety of traits that distinguish productive workers from less
productive workers. Those
>who claim otherwise are ignoring about 85 years of research. Such
predictors include
>intelligence, job knowledge, and personality traits such as conscientiousness.
>
I don't believe the claim was that there are no traits that distinguish
"productive" workers from "less productive" workers, but rather that none
have been identified that reliably distinguish predictively and across
groups between "star productive" workers and "normally productive" ones -
with 'star' being perhaps people who are 10x as productive as the average
for the group.

mild-mannered Tom Wheeler

"I think we have epistemological differences here. I read from above that
>you follow an epistemology of intelligence. I follow an epistemology of
>mind, thinking and personal/professional development. I have quite a
>different set of assumptions about people, thinking and the demonstration
>of knowledge.
>
>The point of difference is whether you believe that once a person is judged
>(and I use this word deliberately) by another to be "stupid, with no job
>knowledge, and a screw-off", if they are FIXED into these very very
>subjective categories. An epistemology of mind, thinking and development
>argues that intelligence is not fixed - our cognitive skills can be taught.
>"

And this raises questions above&beyond epistemological ones.
The 'Pygmalion effect' isn't merely about what can be known or predicted,
but about the tendency people have to fulfill expectations that are
powerfully laid on them. (Of course one must be discerning about the
ways in which expectations are conveyed: most people are subtle enough
to get the _real_ message when they're told heavyhandedly & forbiddingly
"We ALL expect the very best from you (and we have plenty of others who
can fill your slot if you don't provide it)" or when verbal assurances of
high esteem are put side-by-side with nonverbal cues which suggest quite
otherwise.


Tom Wheeler

Mike McDaniel <MAMcDani@SATURN.VCU.EDU> wrote:

>Contrary, to an earlier posting on this list, there is a wealth of
research literature showing
a variety of traits that distinguish productive workers from less
productive workers.<

True, but are all the traits common to all successful employees in all
jobs? Can an employee be successful without all these traits?

>Those who claim otherwise are ignoring about 85 years of research.<

Or just maybe they have moved beyond it.

>Such predictors include intelligence<

Are you suggesting that we ought to hire based on IQ? Seems to me the law
is settled--we cannot set hiring standards above that demanded by the job.
In other words, high IQ's cannot be used to screen applicants for jobs
which a high IQ is not required by the job. Wasn't it Griggs v. Duke Power?

>job knowledge<

Are you suggseting that we ought to hire the most knowlable job applicants?
If we did we would always hire the most educated and most experienced and
we would not have age discrimianrtion to worry about.

>and personality traits such as conscientiousness.<

Are you suggesting that we only hire applicants who are conscientious?
What about applciants who are less conscientious?

What a sad day it will be when lower IQ people, less educated and less
knowledgable people, and less conscientious people are convinced that they
are not worthy of a job because 85 years of research shows that these
traits are what is needed for job success. My guess is that this thinking
is precisely the cause for the 21% turnover rate during the first year for
new employees.

Our clients find that their most successful employees in some jobs score
considerably lower in mental ability than their less successful employees.

Our clients also find that very conscientious employees in some jobs are
less successful than the less conscientious employees in the same hob.

wheeler wrote:

> The 'Pygmalion effect' isn't merely about what can be known or predicted,
> but about the tendency people have to fulfill expectations that are
> powerfully laid on them.

Expectations according to whom? By whose criteria? Who has the right to 'expect'
anything of anyone else? School teachers do this so often that no-one takes them
seriously anymore ("Little Tommy is a good pupil but he could do better.."!!!).

Humankind was made to be measured by his/her own yardstick - not that of anyone
else. If he/she can't live up to my expectations, who of the two of us is going
to be the most upset? Not the other person. So why should I be concerned about
it? Let's concentrate only on what the person can do, not what or who he/she is.
I'll bet if we could get right inside those who surround us every day we would
find some very wonderful - and some very nasty - people. But it doesn't effect
us because that is not where we live. We live in a world where it is what people
do that effects us - not who they are.

> (Of course one must be discerning about the
> ways in which expectations are conveyed: most people are subtle enough
> to get the _real_ message when they're told heavyhandedly & forbiddingly
> "We ALL expect the very best from you (and we have plenty of others who
> can fill your slot if you don't provide it)" or when verbal assurances of
> high esteem are put side-by-side with nonverbal cues which suggest quite
> otherwise.
>

I've got no problem with this but here we aren't looking at criteria that sorts
top performers from brilliant performers but a clear indication that they're
working for a real loser in the first place. Sure, reality says that there are
bosses who do say these things (just as there are snobbish Dr Doolittles who
want to prove that they are God) but don't try and lable the employee (or Eliza)
because of who he/she is . . . it just makes the labeller look stupid and annoy
the person he/she is targeting.

Phil Rutherford


> Tom Wheeler

>wheeler wrote:
>
>> The 'Pygmalion effect' isn't merely about what can be known or predicted,
>> but about the tendency people have to fulfill expectations that are
>> powerfully laid on them.
>
>Expectations according to whom? By whose criteria? Who has the right to
'expect'
>anything of anyone else? School teachers do this so often that no-one takes
them
>seriously anymore ("Little Tommy is a good pupil but he could do better.."!!!).
>
Institutional expectations/norms. It isn't a matter of "rights"; all
standardized forms of human interaction occur according to mutual
expectations. The point being made in the quoted paragraph was that such
expectations tend to be communicated, directly or not, and tend to influence
not only the expecter's perceptions, but also actual behavior,
educational/work advancement, etc.. - the classic article, of course,
"Pygmalion in the Classroom" by A M Rosenthal, is about 30 years old.

Tom Wheeler

On the pgymalion effect, Dov Eden's careful study is probably not widely know,
"Pygmalion in management : productivity as a self-fulfilling prophecy" (Lexington,
Mass: Lexington Books, 1990).

Of course on the other side of the coin there is old-fashioned labelling - again a
self-fulfilling prophecy.

Dave

Phil Rutherford wrote:

> wheeler wrote:
>
> > The 'Pygmalion effect' isn't merely about what can be known or predicted,
> > but about the tendency people have to fulfill expectations that are
> > powerfully laid on them.
>
> Expectations according to whom? By whose criteria? Who has the right to 'expect'
> anything of anyone else? School teachers do this so often that no-one takes them
> seriously anymore ("Little Tommy is a good pupil but he could do better.."!!!).
>
> Humankind was made to be measured by his/her own yardstick - not that of anyone
> else. If he/she can't live up to my expectations, who of the two of us is going
> to be the most upset? Not the other person. So why should I be concerned about
> it? Let's concentrate only on what the person can do, not what or who he/she is.
> I'll bet if we could get right inside those who surround us every day we would
> find some very wonderful - and some very nasty - people. But it doesn't effect
> us because that is not where we live. We live in a world where it is what people
> do that effects us - not who they are.
>
> > (Of course one must be discerning about the
> > ways in which expectations are conveyed: most people are subtle enough
> > to get the _real_ message when they're told heavyhandedly & forbiddingly
> > "We ALL expect the very best from you (and we have plenty of others who
> > can fill your slot if you don't provide it)" or when verbal assurances of
> > high esteem are put side-by-side with nonverbal cues which suggest quite
> > otherwise.
> >
>
> I've got no problem with this but here we aren't looking at criteria that sorts
> top performers from brilliant performers but a clear indication that they're
> working for a real loser in the first place. Sure, reality says that there are
> bosses who do say these things (just as there are snobbish Dr Doolittles who
> want to prove that they are God) but don't try and lable the employee (or Eliza)
> because of who he/she is . . . it just makes the labeller look stupid and annoy
> the person he/she is targeting.
>
> Phil Rutherford
>
> > Tom Wheeler