Chapter 4 - Criterion Measurement PDF

Preview

Summary

Chapter 4 lecture notes and book outline...

Description

Chapter 4 – Criterion Measurement Performance – actual on-the-job behaviors that are relevant to the organization’s goals Importance: - criteria reflect organizational or individual performance -

I/O psychologists are often hired to help organizations develop criteria, as well as to implement HR processes that are directly linked to those criteria (typically dependent variables that provide an indication of success or performance)

Criterion Problem: performance (the criterion) usually includes more than one dimension; may be different in different organizations NO ONE PERFORMANCE CRITERION FITS THE BILL FOR ALL ORGANIZATIONAL PURPOSES.

Because key organizational decisions will be made directly on the basis of criteria, organizations need to be sure that these yardsticks (standards) are measuring the right thing and measuring it well CRITERIA – Evaluative standards that can be used as a yardstick for measuring an employee’s success or failure 1. Ultimate criterion – (also called conceptual) – a theoretical construct that we develop as a guide or a goal to shoot for in measuring job success; it encompasses all performance aspects that define success on the job – It can never be completely defined and measured 2. Actual Criterion – our best real-world representative of the ultimate criterion, which we develop to reflect or overlap with the ultimate criterion as much as possible. Includes only those elements of the ultimate criterion that we intend to measure. Criterion Properties: *** Criterion relevance – the degree to which the actual criterion is related to the ultimate criterion (relevance is the percentage of variance in the ultimate criterion that can be accounted for by the actual criterion). In this sense, relevance is analogous to validity CONDITIONS THAT CAN LIMIT THE RELEVANCE OF A CRITERION: 1. Criterion deficiency – a condition in which dimensions in the ultimate measure are not part of or are not captured by the actual measure. A criterion is deficient if a major source of variance in the ultimate criterion is not included in the actual criterion.

2. Criterion contamination – a condition in which things measured by the actual criterion are not part of the ultimate criterion. This is the part of the actual criterion variance that is NOT part of the ultimate criterion variance. Can be caused by: (1) random measurement error [due to unreliability] or (2) bias, which is more systematic, a bigger problem. Most prevalent when the criteria of interest are judgments made by individuals. 

OCCURS WHEN THE MEASURE OF THE ACTUAL CRITERION REFLECTS THINGS OTHER THAN WHAT IT SHOULD MEASURE ACCORDING TO THE ULTIMATE CRITERION

CRITERIA FOR THE CRITERIA - CONFIDENCE CAN BE PLACED IN THE CRITERIA UPON WHICH DECISIONS ARE BASED – A MAJOR GOAL

1. Relevance – the extent to which the actual criterion measure is related to the ultimate criterion – it represents job performance very well [SEE ABOVE] 2. Reliability – the extent to which the actual criterion measure is stable or consistent. When a measure is unreliable, we can’t confidently use it in making important decisions. 3. Sensitivity – the extent to which the actual criterion measure can discriminate among effective and ineffective employees; consistently identifies performance differences among employees, i.e., everyone is not rated the same. 4. Practicality [usefulness]– the degree to which the actual criterion measure can and will be used by individuals making important decisions; can be completed in a reasonable amount of time by supervisor. Must be relatively available, easy to obtain, and acceptable to those making personnel decisions. 5. Fairness – the extent to which the actual criterion measure is perceived by employees to be just and reasonable. If viewed as unfair, inappropriate, or unreasonable, will not be accepted by employees. THE CRITERION PROBLEM – part of the problem is reflected in performance changes over time. Predicting performance is all the more difficult when the performance criterion changes

Two Major Components of the Criterion Problem: 1. Multiple versus Composite Criteria – tricky, but can use both o Performance is best represented by multiple criteria o However, organizations need to make decisions based on one score, number, or combination of these multiple criteria o See Campbell’s Taxonomy of Performance [Table4.2, p.101] – job performance is composed of multiple criteria

2.

Composite criterion – a weighted combination of multiple criteria that results in a single index of performance a. Weighted – if five criteria are scored on the same scale, they can be combined using equal weighting. Simply added up to compute one number that represents the performance of each individual b. Unequal weighting – some procedure is employed to weight the criteria differently [see Table 4.3, p. 102]

Dynamic Criteria –measures reflecting performance levels that change over time – ex. employee starts off performing very well, but not as well six months later. Distinctions Among Performance Criteria 1. Objective criteria (see table 4.4, p.105) – Performance measures that are based on counting, rather than on subjective judgments or evaluations; sometimes called hard or non-judgmental criteria. Taken from organizational records, like absences, lateness, turnover, accidents, grievances, productivity, counterproductive behaviors 2. Subjective criteria – Performance measures that are based on the judgments or evaluations of others rather than on objective measures such as counting; sometimes called soft or judgmental criteria (ex. Ratings or rankings of employees) 3. Contextual Performance vs. Task Performance a. task performance encompasses the work-related activities performed by employees that contribute to the technical core of the organization b. contextual performance encompasses the activities performed by employees that help to maintain the broader organizational, social and psychological environment in which the technical core operates (e.g., organizational citizenship behavior [OCBs], and prosocial organizational behaviors [POBs] 

“Contextual performance” is conducted by those employees who go the extra mile rather than putting forth only what is required or expected of them. Sometimes, however, helping behavior can get in the way of team performance in certain circumstances. Can lead to counterproductive behaviors [CWBs] in some circumstances (a group of intentional behaviors that harm or intend to harm the organization or its members).



OCB is called “social capital” when it results in favorable relationships among coworkers.

There is some empirical support of the notion that personality variables are better predictors of contextual performance, and that cognitive ability variables are better predictors of task performance. Very important to look at both dimensions of performance (task & contextual) to avoid a serious criterion deficiency problem....