Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 13

J Bus Psychol (2007) 22:2133 DOI 10.

1007/s10869-007-9043-z

ORIGINAL PAPER

Is Personality Related to Assessment Center Performance? That Depends on How Old You Are
Henryk T. Krajewski Richard D. Gofn Mitchell G. Rothstein Norman G. Johnston

Published online: 21 June 2007 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Abstract Despite compelling arguments that performance in the assessment center (AC) should be related to personality, past research has failed to demonstrate a consistent link between personality and AC performance. This study investigated whether managerial candidates age could be moderating, and thus obscuring, specic personalityAC performance relations. A large sample of managers (N = 371) participated in an AC and also completed the leadership relevant personality scales of achievement, dominance, and exhibition from the Personality Research Form-E (PRF-E; Jackson, D. N. (1984). Manual for the personality research form. Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press). Consistent with hypotheses, age moderated the relations of dominance and exhibition with AC performance (p < .05), such that dominance and exhibition were more strongly related to AC performance

for older as opposed to younger managers. Results were discussed in terms of their implications for the criterionrelated and construct validity of ACs. Keywords assessment centers personality job performance age differences

Introduction The assessment center (AC) has become widely used in organizations as a tool to select and develop leadership talent (Spychalsky, Quinones, Gaugler, & Pohley, 1997). The popularity of the AC is largely due to consistent evidence of its criterion-related validity (Arthur, Day, McNelly, & Edens, 2003; Gaugler, Rosenthal, Thornton, & Bentson, 1989; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998; Thornton & Byham, 1982). Nevertheless, there are persisting questions regarding the construct validity of the AC (see Klimoski & Brickner, 1987; Lance, Lambert, Gewin, Lievens, & Conway, 2004; Russell, 1987; Russell & Domm, 1995; Woehr & Arthur, 2003). One of the primary motivations for these persisting questions is the desire to determine why ACs have shown relatively impressive criterion-related validities. In terms of the constructs tapped by the AC, researchers have suggested that the AC should have a demonstrable link with personality by virtue of the facts that (a) many commonly identied AC performance dimensions such as, Planning and Organizing, Team Orientation, and Willingness to Learn appear to represent distinctly trait-like constructs (e.g., Haaland & Christiansen, 2002; Neidig & Neidig, 1984; Thornton & Byham, 1982), and (b) overall AC (OAC)and exerciseperformance, in being related to future managerial performance, should correlate with manager-relevant personality traits (e.g., Collins et al., 2003; Crawley, Pinder,

This research was supported by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to Richard Gofn and Mitchell Rothstein. A portion of the data from this research was presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, April, 2002. H. T. Krajewski (&) MICA Consulting Partners, Inc., 229 Yonge St., 4th Floor, Toronto, ON, Canada M5B 1N9 e-mail: hkrajewski@micaworld.com R. D. Gofn Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, Toronto, ON, Canada M. G. Rothstein Richard Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario, Toronto, ON, Canada N. G. Johnston Private Practice, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

123

22

J Bus Psychol (2007) 22:2133

& Herriot, 1990; Fleenor, 1996; Hoeft & Shuler, 2001; Russell, 1987; Spector, Schneider, Vance, & Hezlett, 2000). In addition, there is considerable evidence that the AC may function as a work sample measure of job performance (e.g., Cascio, 1998; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998), and compelling evidence has been established for linkages between personality and job performance (Barrick & Mount 1991; Tett, Jackson & Rothstein, 1991). Thus, it is reasonable to expect some degree of relation between personality and AC performance. However, inspection of past research reveals that there is scant support for a linkage between personality and AC performance. In fact, although one study has reported evidence for a relationship between extraversion and AC performance (Collins et al., 2003), the majority of investigations (e.g., Borman, 1982; Crawley et al., 1990; Fleenor, 1996; Gofn, Rothstein, & Johnston, 1996; Hoeft & Schuler, 2001; Russell, 1987; Russell & Domm, 1995) have found relatively small relations between personality and AC scores (cf. Collins et al., 2003). Thus, the following puzzle exits: On one hand there are compelling conceptual linkages between personality and AC constructs (e.g., Haagland & Christiansen, 2002; Neidig & Neidig, 1984; Thornton & Byham, 1982), but on the other hand, empirical evidence of a personalityAC linkage is unconvincing (e.g., Borman, 1982; Crawley et al., 1990; Fleenor, 1996; Gofn et al., 1996; Hoeft & Schuler, 2001; Russell, 1987; Russell & Domm, 1995). In an effort to solve this puzzle, we investigated the possibility that a third variable is moderating, and thereby obscuring, the empirical linkages between personality and AC performance. In particular, the current study investigated candidates age as a potential moderator of the personalityAC performance relation. As will be discussed in more detail, existing research supports the argument that older managers who possess high scores on certain job-related personality traits may express them in a more effective fashion than similar younger managers, thus causing age to moderate the relation between personality and managerial effectiveness as measured by the AC. Such an investigation could not only shed new light on research examining the persisting questions regarding the construct validity of the AC, but could also have substantive implications for the use of the AC in selection and development contexts. For example, age moderation of the personalityAC relation might suggest that organizations using ACs should recognize that personality test scores may be differentially valid in predicting performance criteria for older versus younger adults.

Age as a moderator of the personalityAC relation Research has shown that, as a predictor variable, age does not consistently relate to AC performance. For example,

although Burroughs, Rollins, and Hopkins (1973) reported a signicant negative correlation between age and AC performance, they interpreted their nding as due to sampling issues. Thornton and Byham (1982) reviewed a wider set of studies in this area in which no relations between age and AC performance were found. Thornton and Byham concluded that any signicant negative correlations would likely be due to sampling issues such as pre-assessment selection. Similar mixed results have been found with research in the area of age and job performance. Waldman and Avolio (1986) conducted a meta-analysis and found a positive correlation between age and productivity indices of job performance. However, McEvoy and Cascio (1989) found methodological problems with the Waldman and Avolio study, and re-analysis of their data determined that there was no relationship between age and job performance. Thus, consistent empirical evidence does not exist for direct relations between age and AC or job performance. However, as stated above, we believe there is a rationale for considering age as a moderator between other variables and performance: in particular in the current study, between personality and AC performance. Our expectation that age moderates the relations of personality with AC scores is based on the theory of psychosocial maturation. Indeed, a recent longitudinal study by McCrae et al. (1999) noted that adults in their 40s and 50s, in an array of cultures, showed less emotional volatility, greater impulse control, and more sensitivity to social situations than adults in their 20s. McCrae et al.s (1999) results cohere with many previous cross-sectional studies (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1994, 1997; Costa, Yang, & McCrae, 1998; Helson & Klohnen, 1998) that suggest there may be functional changes in personality expression as people age. In particular, on the basis of the consistency of the crosscultural evidence they collected, McCrae et al. (1999) concluded that older adults in [a variety of] cultures appear to be less emotionally volatile and more attuned to social demands, together amounting to an increase in what Whitbourne and Waterman (1979) called psychosocial maturity (pp. 473474). Specically, Whitbourne and Waterman (1979) reported evidence of increases in individuals sense of personal identity, integrity, social condence, and intimacy; which was taken as evidence of successful resolution of a number of psychological crises that plague younger adults. It is not so much the case that there are deep changes in individuals basic personality from early to middle age (Costa & McCrae, 1994), but that individuals characteristic adaptationsthat is, their traitrelated expression of skills, habits, attitudes, strategies and goals (see Costa & McCrae, 1994)change to reect a more evolved interpersonal and social awareness (McCrae et al., 1999; Sanderson & Cantor, 1999). After a compre-

123

J Bus Psychol (2007) 22:2133

23

hensive review of the existing literature, Sanderson and Cantor (1999) supported the notion that there are substantive age-related differences in the aspects of personality that are related to the task and interpersonal strategies people use when approaching similar situations. To summarize, in consonance with the theory of psychosocial maturation, there is a weight of research evidence that suggests the nature of personality expression (i.e., interpersonal strategies, ways of relating) may change as individuals age to reect a more well-adjusted and socially adept set of propensities. Thus, it is logical to posit that older managers may express their personality in a more psychosocially mature and effective fashion as compared to younger managers. In examining the issue of the potential age-moderation of the personalityAC performance relation, it is necessary to identify those personality traits which are (a) predictive of managerial effectiveness as captured by AC performance, and (b) subject to age moderation in their relations with AC performance. In the rst section below, those personality traits most likely to be predictive of AC performance are identied. In the subsequent section, we discuss the potential of age to moderate the respective personalityAC performance relations.

Personality and AC performance: identifying managerrelevant personality traits In terms of identifying manager-relevant personality traits, it is useful to begin with the Five-factor model of personality examining constructs at the broad, ve-factor level, and at the narrower, trait levelthe latter of which are the constituents of the broader factors (see Costa & McCrae, 1992). Researchers have consistently found and/or suggested that constituent traits of the Big Five factor of Extraversion are positively related to managerial effectiveness (Bass, 1990; Costa & McCrae, 1988; Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002; Stogdill, 1974). More specically,

the constituent Extraversion trait of dominance has a long and venerable history of being linked to leadership potential and performance (e.g., Bass, 1990; Bradley, Nichol, Charbonneau, & Meyer, 2002; Conway, 2000; Gofn et al., 1996; Gough, 1990; Howard & Bray, 1988; Jackson, Peacock & Holden, 1982; Judge et al., 2002; Steinberg & Shapiro, 1982; Stogdill, 1974). Indeed, individuals high in dominance are typically described as assertive and directive with a propensity to assume the role of leader. Thus, such individuals should perform well in AC exercises that are dependent on the propensity to take control and assume the role of leader such as the leaderless group discussion, in-basket simulation, and managerial role-play exercises. Such individuals should also be able to demonstrate their willingness to lead and take control as assessed by structured interviews, which are also commonly used in ACs (Spychalsky et al., 1997). Further, we also believed that there were sound conceptual reasons (explained below) to expect that the relation of dominance with AC performance would be moderated by age. In terms of potential measures of dominance, the Dominance scale of the PRF-E (Jackson, 1984; see Table 1) appeared paradigmatic of the dominance scales that have predicted managerial performance in past research. In fact, research has shown that the Dominance scale of the PRF-E correlates impressively with managerial job performance ratings (r = .45; Gofn et al., 1996) and may have higher criterion-related validity than other dominance scales (Gofn et al., 2000). Another constituent trait of the broad Extraversion factor that has been linked to effective leader performance relates to the willingness and desire to seek attention and participate in social activities (Bass, 1990; Conway, 2000; Gofn et al., 1996; Gough, 1990; Howard & Bray, 1988; Jackson et al., 1982; Steinberg & Shapiro, 1982; Stogdill, 1974). Individuals who possess such traits seek and receive attention through the display of interpersonal condence and skill, and are also likely to relish being in the spotlight. Individuals with such traits are likely to have excellent communication and social skillswhich have been

Table 1 Descriptions of high and low scorers on PRF-E personality dimensions, exhibition, dominance, and achievement orientation PRF-E scale Description of high scorer Exhibition Wants to be the center of attention; enjoys having an audience; engages in behavior that wins the notice of others; may enjoy being dramatic or witty Dening trait adjectives Colorful, immodest, entertaining, dramatic, ashy, conspicuous, noticeable, expressive, ostentatious, demonstrative, showy

Dominance

Attempts to control environment, and to inuence and direct other Governing, controlling, commanding, domineering, people; Expresses opinions forcefully; enjoys the role of leader inuential, persuasive, forceful, leading, directing, and may assume it spontaneously assertive, supervising Striving, self-improving, capable, enterprising, ambitious, attaining, aspiring, driving

Achievement Aspires to accomplish difcult tasks; maintains high standards; orientation willing to put forth effort to attain excellence

Note: Descriptors were taken from Jackson (1984, p. 6). Reproduced with permission from the publisher Sigma Assessment Systems (D/B/A Research Psychologists Press prior to 1989; Port Huron, MI) and the test author. Copyright 1984, 1989

123

24

J Bus Psychol (2007) 22:2133

identied as important managerial competencies by researchers investigating taxonomies of managerial performance (Conway, 2000; Tett, Guterman, Bleier, & Murphy, 2000). In terms of potential measures, the Exhibition scale from the PRF-E (Jackson, 1984) seems highly reective of the tendency to be noticeable, demonstrative, and engage in social activities (see Table 1). Because individuals high in Exhibition should stand-out as socially adept, they may perform well in group simulations and role-play exercises in the AC, and may also be able to substantiate their propensity for social condence and competence in the structured interviews that are often used as part of an AC. The Exhibition scale has also been shown to predict a moderate proportion of variance in managerial job performance ratings (r = .33; Gofn et al., 1996) and to outperform other exhibition-similar scales from other personality measures in the prediction of job performance (Gofn et al., 2000). As was the case with the trait of dominance, we were also convinced that there were sound conceptual reasons (explained below) to expect that the relation of exhibition with AC performance would be moderated by age. Constituent traits of the broad trait of Conscientiousness, such as achievement orientation, have also been tied to managerial performance (see Bass, 1990; Gofn et al., 1996; Hough, 1992; Judge et al., 2002; Mount & Barrick, 1995). However, as discussed in the next section, with regard to the possible moderation of personalityAC performance relations by age, we expected that dominance and exhibition would be much more prone to age-moderation than would achievement orientation. Because previous research (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Judge et al., 2002; Tett et al., 1991), has not generally shown the remaining Big Five traits of Agreeableness or Openness to Experience to be consistently related to job performance, we choose not to examine facets of those traits in the current study.

Age-moderation of dominance and exhibition (but not achievement) with AC performance Viewing the above in the context of the current study, older managers who are high in dominance (see Table 1) and/or exhibition (see Table 1) may express these personality characteristics in a more psychosocially mature, strategically effective fashion. As a result, older managers high in dominance and exhibition may be perceived more positively, and as more effective, in the AC as compared to younger managers with similar levels of dominance and exhibition. Indeed, common AC measures (e.g., leaderless group discussion, role-playing simulations, structured interviews) often assess competence in the delicate bal-

ancing of the propensity to lead and take action with the need to foster team development and effective communication. To illustrate, consider that a younger manager who is high in dominance and exhibition might attempt to direct, lead, and control the workgroup more inelegantly, and with less social skill, than like attempts made by an older manager. Directive and/or controlling behaviors coming from an older versus younger manager might therefore be received more positively by others in the work group, and be judged as more appropriate by observers (i.e., AC raters). The preceding is not meant to imply that that younger managers high in dominance and exhibition will necessarily perform poorly in the AC; clearly, dominance and exhibition are personality traits that have been shown to be highly relevant to managerial performance (as discussed above). It may simply be the case that dominance and exhibition may relate more strongly to AC performance for older versus younger managers by virtue of the overall effectiveness with which these types of personality traits are expressed by older managers. With regard to potential age-moderation effects involving achievement orientation, we believed that achievement orientation and other facets of Conscientiousness would exhibit consistent relations with AC performance regardless of the age of the manager. Indeed, the impact of achievement orientation on managerial performance stems from behaviors that promote highly tangible and proximal results regardless of the age of the manager (e.g., more hours on the job, setting higher standards for performance; see McClelland & Winter, 1969). On the other hand, expressions of dominance and exhibition depend more on the attainment of positive reactions from others, and were expected to be considerably more effective as a direct result of the aging process (we describe this in more detail below). Thus, we could readily conceive of compelling reasons for the age moderation of personality AC performance relations involving the traits of dominance and exhibition, but we could conceive of no compelling reasons to expect age-moderation involving achievement orientation, or other facets of Conscientiousness. As mentioned, the current study was intended to investigate those personality traits which are (a) predictive of managerial effectiveness as captured by AC performance, and (b) subject to age moderation in their relations with AC performance. While it is certainly true that other PRF-E traits (or related traits on other inventories) other than exhibition and dominance that could be subject to the age-moderation effect proposed, there were none that appeared to directly satisfy the two aforementioned criteria. Further, analysis of a wide array of traits would constitute a more exploratory approach to research which is farther removed from the more accepted a priori, construct-based

123

J Bus Psychol (2007) 22:2133

25

approach using specic hypotheses based upon substantive and/or empirical grounds (e.g., see Rothstein & Gofn, 2000). Exploring possible criterion relations involving a number of traits for which there were not strong a priori rationales would greatly increase the overall experimentwise error rate and increase the chance that our results would capitalize on sample-specic variations that would not replicate in future studies.

ality scales and participated in an selection-based AC for the purpose of lling more senior leadership positions in the organization. At the time, most participants worked for the participating organization in mid-level managerial positions, however, there were also a small number of external candidates who had previously held mid-level managerial positions. The age of the managers in the current study ranged from 21 to 57 (M = 36.39, SD = 7.49). The assessment center

Hypotheses Based on the information presented above, the following hypotheses were forwarded: Hypothesis 1. Age will moderate the dominance-AC performance relation such that dominance will be more strongly related to AC performance for older versus younger managers. Hypothesis 2. Age will moderate the exhibition-AC performance relation such that exhibition will be more strongly related to AC performance for older versus younger managers. Hypothesis 3. Age will not moderate the achievement orientation-AC performance relation. It should be noted that these hypotheses could be applied equivalently to the relations between personality and on the job performance. It has been often observed (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Tett et al., 1991) that correlations between personality and job performance are signicant but have relatively low effect sizes, and that moderator variables may be impacting these relations. The difculty of determining age-related effects on personalityjob performance relations is that, due to sampling constraints and related methodological problems, it would be almost impossible to test this hypothesis with on the job performance. To obtain equivalent on the job performance measures from managers of different ages would require a large sample of managers with identical job performance criteria within an organization (something very difcult to achieve even in very large organizations), or across organizations (in which case many potential confounds would be raised). Using measures of AC performance therefore provides a unique opportunity to test the current hypotheses using a common criterion measure of performance for all participants. The purpose of the AC was to evaluate the managerial skills of the current sample of managers. The development of the AC exercises was a meticulous process that involved a range of company personnel, and consisted of multiple drafts and pretests. Six managerial skill dimensions were identied as relevant to the positions to be lled on the basis of a thorough job analysis involving SMEs (i.e., highperforming senior managers in the organization) and job incumbents in the participating organization. Job analysis procedures included administering surveys, researching training manuals, and conducting interviews. The initial job analysis information was collected and synthesized by the current studys last author whose results were validated by SMEs in the client organization. Any discrepancies arising in the job analysis rating and classication procedures were handled in the same way that discrepancies are handled in standard AC processes. That is, the consulting psychologist and the client SMEs shared observations, discussed ndings, and arrived at a consensus. The six managerial skill dimensions identied were (a) Planning and organizing (establishing and implementing a plan in order to attain a business objective); (b) Coaching (guiding, directing, and helping subordinates to develop); (c) Results orientation (showing initiative, perseverance, and commitment to achieving quality work performance); (d) Willingness to learn (showing commitment to further self and to professional development; active involvement in learning); (e) Team orientation (showing willingness and skill to work effectively as part of a team); and (f) Communication (effectiveness in exchanging information in oral and/or written form including persuasiveness and listening skills). In keeping with the taxonomic approach taken in Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, and Sagers (1993; p. 43) seminal article on job performance, for convenience we refer to these dimensions throughout as skills, but the more technically correct term for them is Procedural Knowledge and Skill. The skill dimensions were assessed in the following AC exercises: a leaderless-group discussion where ve candidates at a time took part in a problem-solving discussion; a situational interview (e.g., Latham, Saari, Pursell, & Campion, 1980) which required candidates to describe

Method Participants Three hundred and seventy-one managers (201 males, 63 females, 107 undeclared) of a large international forestryproducts organization based in Canada completed person-

123

26

J Bus Psychol (2007) 22:2133 Table 2 Description of performance dimensions assessed in each AC exercise Dimension Exercise LGD Planning and organizing Coaching Results orientation Willingness to learn Team orientation Communication X X SI PBDI IB X RP X

their preferred responses to several hypothetical situations; a past-behavior description interview (e.g., Janz, 1982) where candidates were prompted to describe concrete examples from their past where they exhibited specic jobrelevant attributes; an in-basket exercise where the candidate assumed the role of a manager while responding in an open-ended format to a variety of challenges described in a series of communications (notes, memos, letters, etc.); and a managerial task simulation (role play) wherein the participant played the role of a manager providing performance feedback. Six senior management personnel, one I/O psychologist, and one experienced person from the HR function constituted the assessor team. All assessors were highly trained and had previous experience serving as assessors in the current company. The training consisted of three components: (a) self study of a tailor-made AC manual, (b) a halfday individualized training session run by the AC Administrator (an experienced I/O Psychologist), and (c) assignment to an experienced assessor for their rst of several assessments until they themselves were sufciently experienced. The senior management personnel and I/O psychologist assessed the candidates performance on the ve AC exercises (described above) and rotated assignments within any given AC in order to minimize assessor bias. Two assessors were typically assigned to work as a team for each exercise. The HR person served in an administrative role and also helped score the in-basket task. The AC allowed assessors the opportunity to evaluate how well each participant responded to various managerial challenges as well as to assess the quality of their interactions with peers and subordinates (where called for by a particular exercise). Scores on each skill dimension were based on assessors ratings of the presence or absence of key behaviors or interpersonal stylistic tendencies. Fivepoint behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) were used to rate each skill dimension within each exercise. To illustrate, the Coaching dimension was measured using a scale that ranged from: 1 (Uninvolved in facilitating employee development; does not take responsibility for employee guidance and direction; restricts activities of subordinates) to 5 (Shows a strong commitment to employee development; effectively motivates and guides others; sets a positive example; gives subordinates an opportunity to function independently). Each point on the 5-point BARS possessed a similarly detailed behavioral description. Table 2 presents a summary of the managerial skill dimensions evaluated in each exercise. Because of the nature of particular AC exercises, not all skill dimensions were amenable to measurement in each exercise, which is typical of ACs (Thornton & Byham, 1982). Specically,

Note: LGD = leaderless group discussion, SI = situational Interview, PBDI = past-behavior description interview, IB = in-basket, RP = role play, = the dimension was assessed in the exercise listed, X = the dimension was not assessed in the exercise listed

the leaderless-group discussion did not permit the measurement of Coaching or Willingness to Learn; the inbasket did not permit the measurement of Willingness to Learn; and the role-play did not permit the measurement of Team Orientation (see Table 2). AC performance An AC performance rating the current authors named the Consensus Managerial Performance Rating (CMPR) was used as the main criterion. This criterion was an aggregate of assessors consensus ratings for each candidate on each managerial skill dimension (see above). Such consensus or staff meeting judgments represent conventional AC performance criteria (Thornton & Byham, 1982). Results of a principal axis factor analysis performed on the six consensus ratings clearly indicated the presence of a single factor that accounted for 57% of the variance (mean loading = .75). A scree plot further strongly supported the existence of a single factor. Similarly, a conrmatory factor analysis performed using EQS 6.1 (Bentler, 2005) found that a one-factor model t the data (v2 = 59.2, df = 9; Relative Noncentrality Index = .93; Comparative Fit Index = .93; Bentler-Bonnet Normed Fit Index = .92). Thus, the six consensus ratings were aggregated to form a single AC performance score (i.e., the CMPR).1 The CMPR used here was expected to better capture candidates performance than would the OAC rating, which is a more holistic, and inherently more subjective, rating (Arthur et al., 2003) of candidates overall performance.

Substituting assessors exercise ratings (i.e., aggregating dimensional scores within exercises)which is another valid means of combining AC judgments (Bycio, Alvares, & Hahn, 1987)did not change the conclusions that were drawn from this work.

123

J Bus Psychol (2007) 22:2133

27 Table 3 Zero-order correlations and descriptive statistics for personality, age and work-sample performance Variable 1. Exhibition 2. Dominance 3. Achievement 4. Age 5. CMPR M SD 1 (.80a) .41* .04 .08 .21* 8.04 3.54 (.75a) .33 .05 .18* 12.41 2.11 (.85a) .06 .05 12.83 2.16 .21* 36.39 7.49 (.83) 3.17 .32 2 3 4 5

Personality measures Personality was assessed using the Personality Research Form-E (PRF-E; Jackson, 1984), an inventory widely acknowledged for its excellent construct and criterion-related validity (Gofn et al., 2000). As explained in the introduction, the PRF-E traits of dominance, exhibition, and achievement (see Table 1) were selected as being particularly relevant to the current study. The PRF-E scales each consisted of 16 true/false items resulting in total scores ranging from 0 to 16. Age Participants self-reported their chronological age concomitant with their completion of the personality measures. Procedure Participants completed the PRF-E scales just prior to their participation in the AC. Assessors rated participants on each of the AC skill dimensions after each exercise was completed. At the conclusion of the AC, assessors held group meetings during which a consensus judgment was obtained for each participant on each of the AC skill dimensions. It was the latter dimensional consensus judgments that were aggregated to form the CMPR criterion measure described earlier. Assessors were not aware of participants personality test scores prior to making AC judgments.

Note: N = 371. CMPR = consensus managerial performance rating of AC performance. Reliabilities are displayed in parentheses along the diagonal.
a

Reliability coefcients for exhibition and dominance are based on a normative sample from Anderson (1999) *p < .01

performance were low-to-moderate in magnitude, and positive (see Table 3). The relations of age with achievement, dominance, and exhibition were very weak. Age had a small negative relation with AC performance (see Table 3). Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3: tests of the moderating effect of age Hierarchical regressions The moderated multiple regression technique as per Aiken and West (1991) was used with the following order of entry: First, the predictor term (personality), followed by the moderator (age), and then the predictormoderator interaction term (personality-by-age cross-product). As recommended by Aiken and West (1991), the dominance, exhibition, achievement, and age variables were centered prior to analyses. With regard to the interpretation of the results, the unadjusted R2 value is inuenced by the sample size and the number of predictors used, and represents an upwardly biased estimate of the true population R2. Therefore, the adjusted R2 value was the effect size statistic of choice because it represents the proportion of predicted variance that would be expected in the population (Pedhazur, 1982). As mentioned previously, it was decided that the moderating effects of age on personalityAC relations would be studied separately for exhibition and dominance to allow for unambiguous interpretation of results. Exhibition As displayed in Table 4, the addition of the exhibition-byage interaction term resulted in a signicant increase in adjusted R2, thus indicating that age moderated the relation

Results Table 3 reports descriptive statistics, alpha reliabilities, and intercorrelations with respect to the dominance, exhibition, achievement, age and AC performance scores. Because the PRF item data were not available in the current study, reliability estimates for exhibition, dominance, and achievement were based on a normative managerial sample (N = 227; Anderson, 1999).2 As shown, the reliability of the CMPR, as well as the estimated reliabilities of the personality scales exceeded accepted standards (i.e., >.70, Nunnally, 1978). The relations between the personality measures were moderate and consistent with past research (Jackson, 1984). The relations of the personality measures with AC
Normative estimates were not based on those values given in the PRF-E handbook (Jackson, 1984) because those estimates were based on a relatively small college sample (N = 84). Because Andersons (1999) data were collected from a reasonably large sample of managers (N = 227) they were expected to provide a more accurate, and relevant estimate for the current study.
2

123

28 Table 4 Age-moderated regression of consensus managerial performance rating (CMPR) onto exhibition Variable Equation 1 Exhibition Equation 2 Exhibition Age Equation 3 Exhibition Age Exhibition Age .042** .016** .004* .233** .187** .169* .035** .016** .192** .194** .03 (.02)* .12 (.10)** .038** .210** .05 (.04)** .09 (.08)** b B DR2 .04 (.04)** Overall R2 .04 (.04)**

J Bus Psychol (2007) 22:2133 Table 5 Age-moderated regression of consensus managerial performance rating (CMPR) onto dominance Variable Equation 1 Dominance Equation 2 Dominance Age Equation 3 Dominance Age Dominance Age .056** .004* .218** .109* .017** .207** .046** .177** .04 (.03)* .13 (.10)** .019** .221** .043** .168** .05 (.04)** .09 (.07)** b B DR2 Overall R2

.04 (.03)** .04 (.03)**

Note: N = 371. b = standardized regression weight; B = unstandardized regression weight; DR2 = Change in R2-value due to adding variable to equation; overall R2 = total variance predicted considering all variables in equation. Values in parentheses are adjusted R2s (see Pedhazur 1982) *p < .05, ** p < .01

Note: N = 371. b = standardized regression weight; B = unstandardized regression weight; DR2 = Change in R2-value due to adding variable to equation; overall R2 = total variance predicted considering all variables in equation. Values in parentheses are adjusted R2s (see Pedhazur, 1982). *p < .05, **p < .01

between exhibition and AC performance (DadjR2 = .02, p < .05). Older and younger groups were formed at one standard deviation above and below the mean age and plotted for the exclusive purpose of illustrating the moderator effect (see Fig. 1). As shown, the interaction was such that exhibition predicted AC performance more strongly for older candidates. Dominance As displayed in Table 5, the addition of the dominance-byage interaction term resulted in a signicant increase in

adjusted R2, thus indicating that age moderated the relation between dominance and AC performance (DadjR2 = .03, p < .05). Older and younger groups were once again formed at one standard deviation above and below the mean age and plotted for the exclusive purpose of illustrating the moderator effect (see Fig. 2). As shown in Fig. 2, the interaction was such that dominance predicted AC performance more strongly for older candidates. Of note, ancillary analyses (not reported here) showed that differences in reliabilities and/or range restriction

0.5
1

Age
0.5

Older: +1 SD (43.88 yrs) Younger: -1 SD (28.90 yrs)

CMPR

CMPR

-0.5

-0.5

-1
-1

Age
Older: +1 SD (43.88 yrs) Younger: -1 SD (28.90 yrs)

-1.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

-1.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Exhibition
Fig. 1 Display of observed interaction of exhibition and age with AC performance as measured by the CMPR. CMPR = consensus managerial performance rating of AC performance. CMPR given in Z score units. The correlation for between exhibition and AC performance for the older group (+1 SD) was .31 (p < .01; n = 91). The correlation for between exhibition and AC performance for the younger group (1 SD) was .16 (n.s.; n = 89)

Dominance
Fig. 2 Display of observed interaction of dominance and age with AC performance as measured by the CMPR. CMPR = consensus managerial performance rating of AC performance. CMPR given in Z score units. The correlation for between dominance and AC performance for the older group (+1 SD) was .22 (p < .05; n = 91). The correlation for between dominance and AC performance for the younger group (1 SD) was .13 (n.s.; n = 89.)

123

J Bus Psychol (2007) 22:2133

29

between older and younger workers were not viable alternative explanations for the age-moderation effects that were found. Achievement Results of analyses showed that achievement did not predict AC performance as measured by the CMPR, and that the addition of the achievement-by-age interaction term over and above the achievement and age terms did not result in a signicant increase in adjusted R2. This indicated that age did not moderate the relation between achievement and AC performance (DadjR2 = .00, n.s.).

studymay uncover more substantial relations between personality and performance. Explaining the current pattern of results An examination of Figs. 1 and 2 shows that exhibition and dominance were more strongly related to AC performance for older as opposed to younger managers, which was consistent with our psychosocial maturity rationale that older managers high in dominance and exhibition should be more effective as compared to similar younger managers. However, an examination of Figs. 1 and 2 also reveals that older managers who were low in exhibition and dominance received poorer AC evaluations than did similar younger managers. Furthermore, as evidenced in Figs. 1 and 2, and by the negative correlation between age and CMPR (r = .21; Table 3), the average AC performance level of older managers was actually lower than that of younger managers. Thus, it may have been the case that additional mechanisms were operating to produce the current results. One additional mechanism that may have been operating to affect the results of the current study may have been rooted in the cognitive and heuristic processes of the AC assessors. Indeed, AC assessors were required to observe and evaluate hundreds of candidates for managerial positions, on a variety of different AC performance dimensions, and within a number of different AC exercises. Thus, it is likely that even the most experienced and extensively trained raters may have invoked heuristic processes, such as the use of stereotypes and expectancies, in order to facilitate the complex decision-making and rating tasks required of them. Past research shows that the use of loadreducing categorization and expectancy processes is common in performance rating contexts, particularly when raters are required to process a high volume of information (e.g., Barnes-Farrell, 2001; Ilgen & Feldman, 1983; Klimoski & Donahue, 2001; see also Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Murphy & Cleveland, 1995; Perry & Bourhis, 1998). In light of the above, it may be that AC assessors formed category-based expectancies based on readily observable demographic characteristics such as candidates age (Klimoski & Donahue, 2001). Because older workers are stereotypically viewed as being slower to learn, less innovative, less energetic, less extraverted, and overall poorer performers than their younger counterparts (Capowski, 1994; Rosen & Jerdee, 1976a, b), the formation of such expectancies may have had an overall negative effect on the AC ratings of older managers. Thus, although older managers who are high in exhibition and dominance have the potential to express these traits in more effective ways (as explained earlier), this potential benet of being older may have been offset in certain cases by negative age-

Discussion Hypothesis 1 stated that age would moderate the relation between exhibition and AC performance. As expected, results showed that exhibition related to AC performance more strongly for older versus younger managers. Similar support was found for Hypothesis 2, which stated that age would moderate the relation between dominance and AC performance. As expected, dominance related to AC performance more strongly for older versus younger managers. The previous two results lend support to our logic that older managers who are high in dominance (see Table 1) and/or exhibition (see Table 1) may express these personality characteristics in a more psychosocially mature, strategically effective fashion. Consistent with Hypothesis 3, age was not found to moderate the relation between achievement and AC performance. With respect to this latter result, it appears that there is some support for our contention that achievement orientation would exhibit consistent relations with AC performance regardless of the age of the manager. Despite conrming our hypotheses, it is apparent that the magnitude of the obtained correlations, even for the older AC participants, was moderate. It should be noted however, that such moderate effect sizes are common in studies involving personalityjob performance relations. As Schmidt and Hunter (1998) showed, utility analysis of selection methods has shown that even moderate effect sizes can result in considerable nancial benet. In addition, the current results may have been affected by sampling effectsa potential issue that arises in many crosssectional research designs. In the research on personality job performance relations, it is well documented that sampling effects could result in zero or even negative correlations. Notwithstanding the argument that moderate effects can produce large utility, the use of appropriate meta-analytic techniques, and taking relevant moderator variables into accountas demonstrated in the current

123

30

J Bus Psychol (2007) 22:2133

related stereotypes that affected the AC rating process. This explanation is consistent with our nding that the AC performance of older workers was lower on average, even though the relation of exhibition and dominance with AC performance was stronger for older workers. Thus, it is still possible that to some extent a negative bias in ratings of older workers in the AC was contributing to the current results, especially when high levels of relevant personality traits were not present to overcome the negative stereotype of the older participants. Future research should be designed to differentiate further the effects of psychological maturity versus negative stereotypes on the AC performance of older participants. Limitations, future directions, and implications It should be noted that the current research dealt only with the job of manager and only with the personality traits of achievement, dominance, and exhibition. Future research with other occupational groups should therefore investigate whether the current, and other, personality variables produce the currently observed age-moderation effect. Agemoderation may be expected to occur when (a) a trait shows a conceptual or empirical link with managerial effectiveness, and (b) maturational processes can be expected to interact in some fundamental way with the performance linkages involving the respective trait. Some may assert that one limitation of the current work is that the number of years of experience was not measured as a control variable. Indeed, it could be argued that it is experience, not psychosocial maturity as indexed by a candidates age that is the variable of interest. Unfortunately, experience data were not available for the current sample. There was, however, available data on whether candidates had worked, or were currently working for, the participating organization, and ancillary analyses showed that candidates with experience inside the participating organization did not perform any better or worse than candidates without such experience. The preceding result coheres with past research on exercises typically part of a standard AC (e.g., the SI and PBI; Huffcutt et al., 2001; Pulakos & Schmitt, 1995) which has shown that experience is not related to job performance. Moreover, recall that the theoretical premise of our expectation of age-moderation is that psychosocial maturity will result in more effective expression of exhibition and dominance. Psychosocial maturity is gradually acquired as a result of effectively resolving a succession of various developmental crises relating to identity, intimacy, social condence and integrity (Whitbourne & Waterman, 1979). In short, psychosocial maturity increases as a function of ontogeny. We can think of no reason to expect that psychosocial maturity would increase largely as a function work experience rather

than life experience. Indeed, looking more closely at work experience as a possible substitute for age in the current studywhat measure of work experience would be more appropriate to use than age? Number of years employed would not sufce because there is no reason to expect this would be a better indicator of psychosocial maturity than age. Further, number of years employed would be greater to the extent that one entered the workforce at a young age, but there is no inherent link between entering the workforce at a young age and greater psychosocial maturity. Similarly, number of years employed could include experience in a variety of jobs which vary greatly in terms of their potential to contribute to psychosocial maturity. Although we nd the above rationales persuasive, empirical support awaits future studies that investigate the present moderator effect using candidates experience rather than their age. In terms of the applied and academic implications, the present nding that age moderates the personalityAC relation leads to suggestions that organizations using ACs should recognize that personality test scores may be differentially valid in predicting AC scores, and perhaps other performance criteria, for older versus younger adults. For example, consistent with the psychosocial maturity interpretation, older managers high in dominance and exhibition may be receiving higher ratings than similar younger managers primarily due to the particular way that older managers express their personality. Capable younger managers with similar personalities, but expressing them in less mature ways may benet from training or coaching on how to express their needs in more effective ways. In addition, the fact that older managers low in exhibition and dominance received lower AC ratings than did similar younger managers in the current study, suggests that organizations using AC evaluations may need to train assessors more effectively against the use of negative stereotypes and biases against older AC participants. Further, the conclusion in past research that ACs tend to result in task-based role congruency inferences that are largely orthogonal to personality (Lance et al., 2004; Russell, 1987; Russell & Domm, 1995) may need to be reexamined, and raises further troubling questions regarding the construct validity of the AC. As Haaland and Christiansen (2002) and Tett (1999) suggested, ACs are indeed likely to possess a signicant (although obscured) personality substrate. The current study provides some support for this suggestion by showing that certain traits are more highly related to AC scores when age is taken into account. Future research dealing with the AC should continue to nd ways to assess the construct validity of ACs by determining other factors that affect the inuence of personality on AC performance. For example, according to Messicks (1995) denition of construct validity, the con-

123

J Bus Psychol (2007) 22:2133

31

struct validity of an AC score is determined by multiple indicators that converge empirically to dene the underlying construct implied by the AC score. Accordingly, evaluating the direct effects of personality and age on AC performance would suggest that personality is one indicator that helps to determine the construct validity of the AC score, whereas age is not (i.e., age would be considered a variable that contributes construct-irrelevant variance). However, when age is used as a moderator of the personalityAC relationship, age does contribute construct-relevant variance in conjunction with personality. Thus, further investigations of factors that may moderate relations between personality and AC performance will contribute to a better understanding of the construct validity of an AC score. Recent work on trait activation and the opportunity for trait expression with different exercises of the AC also hold promise to aid the understanding of the personality AC performance relation (e.g., Haaland & Christiansen, 2002; Tett, 1999; Tett & Guterman, 2000). Because this study used AC performance as a criterion rather than actual job performance, generalizations regarding the possible age-moderation of personalityjob performance relations must proceed cautiously. However, it is notable that the AC is a well-regarded work sample measure of job performance. Indeed, work sample measures of job performance have a long and venerable history of being used as job performance criteria (e.g., McDaniel, Schmidt, & Hunter, 1988; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998; Schmidt, Hunter, & Outerbridge, 1986; Smith, 1991; Schmidt, Hunter, Outerbridge, & Goff, 1988), and have been endorsed as particularly appropriate when assessing the performance of managers (Cascio, 1998). The implications of the current results for personalityjob performance relations should therefore not be taken lightly. Accordingly, the current results suggest that researchers should appreciate the potential impact of moderators of the personalityjob performance relation. Failure to recognize that there may be important moderators of the personality job performance relation may limit the ability of researchers and personnel practitioners alike to detect the true magnitude of personalityjob performance relations (Schneider & Hough, 1995). Failure to detect the true relation between personality and job performance may, in turn, contribute to less accurate selection decisions. Using the appropriate controls, future studies should investigate these effects using more traditional measures of job performance such as supervisory and peer ratings. In sum, the current study found support for the hypothesis that age moderates personalityAC performance relations. To our knowledge, this is the rst study to investigate such an effect. Thus, we hope that this study will stimulate future research examining the effect of age

on the relation between personality and various performance measures.

References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Anderson, D. W. (1999). Personality, self-efcacy, and leadership behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. Arthur, W., Day, E. A., McNelly, T. L., & Edens, P. S. (2003). A meta-analysis of the criterion-related validity of assessment center dimensions. Personnel Psychology, 56, 125154. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdills handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press. Barnes-Farrell, J. L. (2001). Performance appraisal: Person perception processes and challenges. In M. London (Ed.), How people evaluate others in organizations. Applied in psychology (pp. 135153). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 126. Bentler, P. M. (2005). EQS 6.1 for Windows (computer program). Encino, CA: Multivariate Software Inc. Borman, W. C. (1982). Validity of behavioral assessment for predicting military recruiter performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 39. Bradley, J. P., Nichol, A. M., Charbonneau, D., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Personality correlates of leadership development in Canadian forces ofcer candidates. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 34, 92103. Burroughs, W. A., Rollins, J. B., & Hopkins, J. J. (1973). The effect of age, departmental experience and prior rater experience on performance in assessment center exercises. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 335339. Bycio, P., Alvares, K. M., & Hahn, J. (1987). Situational specicity in assessment center ratings: A conrmatory factor analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 463474. Capowski, G. (1994). Ageism: The new diversity issue. Management Review, 83, 1015. Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Cascio, W. F. (1998). Applied psychology in human resource management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Collins, J. M., Schmidt, F. L., Sanchez-Ku, M., Thomas, L., McDaniel, M. A., & Le, H. (2003). Can basic individual differences shed light on the construct meaning of assessment center evaluations? International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 11, 1729. Conway, J. M. (2000). Managerial performance development constructs and personality correlates. Human Performance, 13, 2346. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A sixyear longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO personality inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 853863. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO-PI-R professional manual: Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

123

32 Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1994). Set like plaster? Evidence for the stability of adult personality. In T. F. Heatherton & J. L. Weinberger (Eds.), Can personality change? (pp. 2140). Washington, DC: APA. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1997). Longitudinal stability of adult personality. In R. T. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 269314). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Costa, P. T., Yang, J., & McCrae, R. R. (1998). Aging and personality traits: Generalization and clinical implications. In I. H. Nordhus, et al. (Eds.), Clinical geropsychology (pp. 3348). Washington, DC: APA. Crawley, B., Pinder, R., & Harriot, P. (1990). Assessment center dimensions, personality and aptitudes. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 211216. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. New York: HBJ. Fleenor, J. W. (1996). Constructs and developmental assessment centers: Further troubling empirical ndings. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10, 319335. Gaugler, B. B., Rosenthal, D. B., Thornton, G. C. Jr., & Bentson, B. (1989). Meta-analysis of assessment center validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 493511. Gofn, R. D., Rothstein, M. G., & Johnston, N. (1996). Personality testing and the assessment center: Incremental validity for managerial selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 746756. Gofn, R. D., Rothstein, M. G., & Johnston, N. G. (2000). Predicting job performance using personality constructs: Are personality tests created equal? In R. D. Gofn & E. Helmes (Eds.), Problems and solutions in human assessment: Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at seventy (pp. 249264). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Gough, H. G. (1990). Testing for leadership with the California Psychological Inventory. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 355379). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America. Haaland, S., & Christiansen, N. D. (2002). Implications of traitactivation theory for evaluating the construct validity of assessment centers. Personnel Psychology, 55, 137163. Helson, R., & Klohnen, E. C. (1998). Affective coloring of personality from young adulthood to mid-life. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 241252. Hoeft, S., & Shuler, H. (2001). The conceptual basis of assessment center ratings. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 9, 114123. Howard, A., & Bray, D. W. (1988). Managerial lines in transition. New York: Guilford. Hough, L. M. (1992). The Big Five personality variables construct confusion: Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139155. Huffcutt, A. I., Weekley, J. A., Wiesner, W. H., Degroot, T. G., & Jones, C. (2001). Comparison of situational and behavior description interview questions for higher-level positions. Personnel Psychology, 54 (3), 619644. Ilgen, D. R., & Feldman, J. M. (1983). Performance appraisal: A process focus. In L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 5). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Jackson, D. N. (1984). Manual for the personality research form. Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press. Jackson, D. N., Peacock, A. C., & Holden, R. R. (1982). Professional interviewers trait inferential structures for diverse occupational groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29, 120. Janz, T. (1982). Initial comparisons of patterned behavior description interviews versus unstructured interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 577580.

J Bus Psychol (2007) 22:2133 Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765780. Klimoski, R. J., & Brickner, M. (1987). Why do assessment centers work? The puzzle of assessment center validity. Personnel Psychology, 40, 243259. Klimoski, R. J., & Donahue, L. M. (2001). Person perception in organizations: An overview of the eld. In M. London (Ed.), How people evaluate others in organizations. Applied in psychology (pp. 543). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lance, C. E., Lambert, T. A., Gewin, A. G., Lievens, F., & Conway, J. M. (2004). Revised estimates of dimension and exercise variance components in assessment center postexercise dimension ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 377385. Latham, G. P., Saari, L. M., Pursell, E. D., & Campion, M. A. (1980). The situational interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 422427. McClelland, D. C., & Winter, D. G. (1969). Motivating economic achievement. New York: Free Press. McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Pedroso de Lima, M., Simoes, A., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., et al. (1999). Age differences in personality across the adult life span: Parallels in ve cultures. Developmental Psychology, 35, 466477. McDaniel, M. A., Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1988). Job experience correlates of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 327330. McEvoy, G. M., & Cascio, W. F. (1989). Cumulative evidence of the relationship between employee age and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 1117. Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons responses and performances as scientic inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50 (9), 741749. Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995). The big ve personality dimensions: Implications for research and practice in human resource management. In G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 13, pp. 153200). Stamford, CT: JAI. Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Performance appraisal: Social, organizational and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Neidig, R. D., & Neidig, P. J. (1984). Multiple assessment center exercises and job-relatedness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 182186. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill. Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research. New York: Holt, Reinhart, & Winston. Perry, E. L., & Bourhis, A. C. (1998). A closer look at the role of applicant age in selection decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 16701697. Pulakos, E. D. & Schmitt, N. (1995). Experience-based and situational interview questions: Studies of validity. Personnel Psychology, 48 (2), 289308. Rosen, B., & Jerdee, T. (1976a). The inuence of age stereotypes on managerial decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 428 432. Rosen, B., & Jerdee, T. (1976b). The nature of job-related age stereotypes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 180183. Rothstein, M. G., & Gofn, R. D. (2000). The assessment of personality constructs in industrial-organizational psychology. In R. D. Gofn & E. Helmes (Eds.), Problems and solutions in human assessment: Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at Seventy. (pp. 215248). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.

123

J Bus Psychol (2007) 22:2133 Russell, C. J. (1987). Person characteristics vs. role congruency explanations for assessment center validity. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 817826. Russell, C. J., & Domm, D. R. (1995). Two eld tests of assessment center validity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 68, 2547. Sanderson, C. A. & Cantor, N. (1999). A life task perspective on personality coherence: Stability versus change in tasks, goals, strategies, and outcomes. In D. Cervone, & Y. Shoda (Eds.) The coherence of personality: Social-cognitive bases of consistency, variability, and organization (pp. 372392). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research ndings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262274. Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., & Outerbridge, A. N. (1986). Impact of job experience and ability on job knowledge, work sample performance, and supervisory ratings of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 432439. Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., Outerbridge, A. N., & Goff, S. (1988). Joint relation of experience and ability with job performance: Test of three hypotheses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 4657. Schneider, R. J., & Hough, L. M. (1995). Personality and industrial/ organizational psychology. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 75129). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Smith, F. D. (1991). Work samples as measures of performance. In A. K. Wigdor & B. F. Green (Eds.), Performance assessment for the workplace (pp. 2752). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Spector, P. E., Schneider, J. R., Vance, C. A., & Hezlett, S. A. (2000). The relation of cognitive ability and personality traits to assessment center performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 14741491.

33 Spychalsky, A. C., Quinones, M. A., Gaugler, B. B., & Pohley, K. (1997). A survey of assessment center practices in organizations in the United States. Personnel Psychology, 50, 7190. Steinberg, R., & Shapiro, S. (1982). Sex differences in personality traits of female and male MBA students. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 306310. Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press. Tett, R. P. (1999). Assessment center validity: New perspectives on an old problem. Paper presented at the 14th annual convention of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA. Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 397 423. Tett, R. P., Guterman, H. A., Bleier, A., & Murphy, P. J. (2000). Development and content validation of a hyperdimensional taxonomy managerial competence. Human Performance, 13, 205252. Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703742. Thornton, G. C., & Byham, W. C. (1982). Assessment centers and managerial performance. New York: Academic Press. Waldman, D. A., & Avolio, B. J. (1986). A meta-analysis of age differences in job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 3338. Whitbourne, S. K., & Waterman, A. S. (1979). Psychosocial development during adult years: Age and cohort comparisons. Developmental Psychology, 15, 373378. . Woehr, D. J., & Arthur, W. Jr. (2003). The construct-related validity of assessment center ratings: A review and meta-analysis of the role of methodological factors. Journal of Management, 29, 231258.

123