Why Don't Measures of Broad Dimensions of Personality Perform Better As Predictors of Job Performance?

By Kevin J. Murphy. 2005

181 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bbc67191e37de10940a7683a337342d167dd158e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

BEYOND PERSONALITY TRAITS: A STUDY OF PERSONALITY STATES AND SITUATIONAL CONTINGENCIES IN CUSTOMER SERVICE JOBS (2011, background): “…(Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000), the size of meta-analytic estimates of the criterion-related validity of personality measures has led some to question the usefulness of personality measures in personnel decision making (e.g., Morgeson et al., 2007; Murphy & Dzieweczynski, 2005).”
The Five-Factor Model, forced-choice personality inventories and performance: A comprehensive meta-analysis of academic and occupational validity studies (2014, background): “Nevertheless, a number of researchers have questioned the utility of personality measures for academic and personnel selection decisions (e.g., Morgeson et al., 2007a; Murphy & Dzieweczysnki, 2005).”
Personality, political skill, and job performance (2008, methodology): “Another limitation is that we used broad factors of personality (i.e., agreeableness and conscientiousness) as predictors, but some researchers (e.g., Murphy & Dzieweczynski, 2005 ) have suggested using narrower facets of these factors, particularly when the criterion also is narrow.”
The Person–Situation Debate Revisited: Effect of Situation Strength and Trait Activation on the Validity of the Big Five Personality Traits in Predicting Job Performance (2014, background): “…while some have questioned the practical relevance of personality variables for human resource selection decisions (Morgeson et al., 2007a, 2007b; Murphy & Dzieweczynski, 2005), our results show that, when there is reason to believe that the trait is relevant to the job context, the validities…”
A Review and Synthesis of Situational Strength in the Organizational Sciences (2010, methodology): ““situational strength” is among the most important situational forces to consider (Hattrup & Jackson, 1996; Hough & Oswald, 2008; Murphy & Dzieweczynski, 2005).”
Measuring Job-Related Situational Strength and Assessing Its Interactive Effects With Personality on Voluntary Work Behavior (2014, methodology): “…in addition to being used as a research instrument, the SSW may be able to serve as a companion to traditional job analytic tools, thereby yielding behaviorally relevant information that is traditionally missed by common approaches (Barrick & Mount, 2005; Johns, 2006; Murphy & Dzieweczynski, 2005).”
The Contributions of Personality to Organizational Behavior and Psychology: Findings, Criticisms, and Future Research Directions (2008, background): “As Nettle (2006) noted, ‘Behavioral alternatives can be considered as tradeoffs, with a particular trait producing not unalloyed advantage but a mixture of costs and benefits such that the optimal value for fitness may depend on very specific local circumstances’ (p.”