Department of Strategic Management and Organization, School of Business, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2R6, Canada.
J Appl Psychol. 2009 Nov;94(6):1498-513. doi: 10.1037/a0017221.
This study investigated the usefulness of the five-factor model (FFM) of personality in predicting two aspects of managerial performance (task vs. contextual) assessed by utilizing the 360 degree performance rating system. The authors speculated that one reason for the low validity of the FFM might be the failure of single-source (e.g., supervisor) ratings to comprehensively capture the construct of managerial performance. The operational validity of personality was found to increase substantially (50%-74%) across all of the FFM personality traits when both peer and subordinate ratings were added to supervisor ratings according to the multitrait-multimethod approach. Furthermore, the authors responded to the recent calls to validate tests via a multivariate (e.g., multitrait-multimethod) approach by decomposing overall managerial performance into task and contextual performance criteria and by using multiple rating perspectives (sources). Overall, this study contributes to the evidence that personality may be even more useful in predicting managerial performance if the performance criteria are less deficient.
这项研究调查了人格的五因素模型（FFM）在预测管理绩效（任务与情境）两个方面的有用性，这两个方面是通过利用 360 度绩效评估系统进行评估的。作者推测，FFM 有效性低的一个原因可能是单一来源（例如，主管）的评分未能全面捕捉管理绩效的结构。根据多特质-多方法的方法，当主管评分加入同事和下属的评分时，人格的操作性有效性大大提高（50%-74%），在所有 FFM 人格特质中都是如此。此外，作者回应了最近通过多元（例如，多特质-多方法）方法验证测试的呼吁，将整体管理绩效分解为任务和情境绩效标准，并使用多个评分视角（来源）。总的来说，这项研究表明，如果绩效标准不那么欠缺，人格在预测管理绩效方面可能更有用。
