Showing papers in "Personnel Psychology in 1963"

The validity of management traits in relation to occupational level

Abstract: Summary Measures of intelligence, supervisory ability, initiative, self-assurance, and perceived occupational level were obtained on eleven groups of individuals in various jobs ranging from line to upper management positions. It was found that the higher the level of the job the higher the score on the five tests and the higher the validity of the tests. It was concluded that apparently these traits identify the individuals who seek or are placed in higher positions, and that the higher the position the more critical these traits are in determining job success.

Supervisory and engineering success associated with self, interaction, and task orientation scores

Abstract: Summary To obtain further understanding of the effects of orientation on performance, 180 supervisory and technical personnel in a chemical plant were administered the Orientation Inventory, assessing their relative self, interaction, and task orientation. In line with expectations, task orientation correlated positively with success as a technically-trained supervisor, and as a first-line foreman. Engineers in research and design were likewise more task-oriented than those in consultative, supervisory, or administrative work whose interaction orientation was likely to be relatively higher. Orientation differences were also found between echelons and between safety and line supervisors.

Predicting turnover in an automated office situation

Abstract: Summary In an attempt to reduce the high rate of turnover among clerical employees working in a highly automated office, existing personnel information was examined for items which might discriminate short tenure from long tenure employees. Sources of data were the application blank, test scores, and reference inquiries. Nine items for women and seven for men were found which cross-validated significantly and predicted well using validity extension samples.

Comparison of three methods for assembling aptitude test batteries

Abstract: Summary A factored battery of thirteen aptitude tests was administered to samples of approximately 200 journeyman employees in each of twelve blue collar job series. Performance ratings were obtained from the employees' first and second level supervisors. Three basic methods for selecting and weighting tests from the aptitude battery were compared. The tests were selected on the basis of results obtained on one sample of employees in each job series and then applied to the second or independent sample to test the significance of the validity coefficients. The three test selection methods utilized were: (1) Wherry-Gaylord Integral Gross Score Weight Method, which involves selecting and multiple weighting tests according to their intercorrelations and correlations with a criterion. In addition, tests selected and multiple weighted by the Wherry-Gaylord method for the jobs were also weighted by their standard deviation by adding raw scores. (2) Civil Service Commission (CSC) Job Analysis Method, which involves equally weighting tests selected for a job series according to the validity of the tests for measuring the rated important employee abilities. (3) General Blue Collar Test Battery, which involves equally weighting the five tests that yielded the highest average correlation with the criterion for all jobs on the test selection sample. This battery was then utilized for all twelve job series. The tests selected and the weights applied for the twelve jobs by utilizing the test selection methods were indicated, also the validity coefficients obtained by applying the different patterns to the cross-validation samples were tabulated. The criterion ratings yielded an average Spearman-Brown estimated product-moment reliability of .675. All but four of the 36 cross-validation coefficients were significant at least at the .05 level. Most of the differences in the cross-validity coefficients were due to the different jobs on which the three test weighting methods were applied rather than the test weighting methods. Also, a comparison of the Wherry-Gaylord multiple formulas with the same tests unit weighted for the cross-validation sample revealed that unit weighting the tests was as effective as using multiple weights. It appears that one test selection method is as effective as another for the number of subjects, job series, and test selection and weighting methods utilized in these studies. The implications of these results are discussed.

The fate of role stereotypes in two performance appraisal situations

Abstract: Summary The present study investigated the effect and course of stereotyped attitudes of supervisors and subordinates interacting to plan changes in the subordinates' performance. In particular, the study concerned the fate of these stereotyped role-attitudes during the course of two types of appraisal interviews: the traditional traits rating method and the newly-formulated goals method. Thirty-six nursing supervisors were assigned roles as supervisors and subordinates and given appropriate role descriptions and instructions. Both groups made initial trait ratings of the hypothetical subordinate and then role-played parts in the two types of appraisal interviews. Following each interaction, supervisors and subordinates rated their reactions. The results clearly indicated that the initial ratings by the supervisors of the hypothetical subordinate were more negative than the ratings made by the subordinates themselves. These differences were present before any interaction had taken place between supervisors and subordinates, and they appear due to stereotyped attitudes inherent in the role of supervisors and subordinates. After role playing, reactions of both supervisors and subordinates to the goals method were more positive than reactions to the traits interaction. When the initial disparity in the critical rating attitudes of supervisors and subordinates was greatest, the traits method interaction perpetuated conflict whereas the goals method interaction either resolved it or in some way avoided it. The traits method appears to force the supervisor to assume an evaluative posture toward the subordinate. This posture fosters the critical attitudes associated with the supervisory role. Under the goals method, on the other hand, the supervisor can take a relatively non-evaluative role. Consequently, the stereotyped attitudes and behaviors associated with an evaluative relationship are circumvented.

Performance suitability and role agreement, two factors related to attitudes

Abstract: Summary It was the purpose of this investigation to examine the significance of the perceptions of incumbents on jobs regarding 1) how they did their work (Report of Performance), 2) how they thought their work should be done (Perceived True Requirements), and 3) how they thought their immediate supervisor wanted the work to be done (Perceived Supervisor's Requirements). It was predicted at the beginning of the study that different patterns of consistency and inconsistency among these three perceptions would be related to attitudes of the incumbents regarding themselves, their work, and their supervisors. The predictions worked out very much as expected, especially when the Perceived True Requirements were compared with the Perceived Supervisor's Requirements. This score is called “Role Agreement”, referring to the subject's report that the role requirements he has for the job agree with what he believes his supervisor requires. Subjects scoring high on Role Agreement rated their supervisors high. They also felt that they were free from pressure from their supervisors to do things the supervisor's way, and that they understood what their supervisors expected of them. They tended to be satisfied by their work and to see in it an opportunity to show what they could do. On the other hand, high Role Agreement had nothing to do with how a man rated his own work, or his basic qualifications to do the work. These attitudes were closely related to the amount of agreement between Perceived True Requirements and Report of Performance, called “Performance Suitability”. That is, people who reported that they were doing the job the way they thought it should be done tended to rate their work and their abilities high, and to derive satisfaction from their work. They felt also that their supervisors would rate their work high. A third comparison was made involving the Report of Performance and Perceived Supervisor's Requirements. To score high on this measure, a person reported that what he was actually doing was in line with what he believed his supervisor required of him. High scorers tended to rate high both their supervisor and their understanding of his requirements, and they tended to be satisfied with their work. The relationships between this type of agreement and positive attitudes were less pronounced than the others, and, in the case of over-all job satisfaction, disappeared when the effects of Role Agreement and Performance Suitability were partialed out. The results lead to the hypothesis that the two orientations, Role Agreement and Performance Suitability, are independent, and each contributes to general satisfaction and to specific job attitudes. If this hypothesis is true, much of the difficulty in finding clear-cut relations between gross measures of job satisfaction, and other variables such as productivity, and supervisory ratings may be explained.

Favorableness ratings of forced-choice statements: applicants vs. non-applicants

Abstract: Summary This study reports on the effects of non-applicant ratings of the favorableness of statements to be included in an experimental forced-choice test for screening life insurance agent applicants. A comparison of the favorableness ratings of applicants with non-applicants revealed differences in the perceived favorableness of statements in the middle range of favorableness. It is suggested that the choice of raters may, in certain situations, be more important than previously reported.