1. business and industrial

ESP TECHNICAL MANUAL
WWW.EMERGENETICS.COM
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
Introduction to the Motivators
This manual outlines the process followed to ensure the sound and ethical use of tests whether used
for development, hiring, promotion, or placement. The manual has two sections:
•
Section 1 includes a summary of best-practices as published in the 1999 Standards for
Educational and Psychological Testing.*
•
Section 2 outlines specific processes and procedures that were followed in developing the
survey of Attitudes, Interests and Motivations.
*1999, American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association & National
Council on Measurement in Education American, Educational Research Association: Publisher,
Washington, DC.
Section 1
The (1999) Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing
The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing were developed to assure the fair and
equitable use of tests. It outlines best-practice standards for testing, starting with the rationale for
developing a test and ending with recommendations for its proper use.
The major provisions include:
•
Establishing Validity…a test developer should accumulate scientific evidence to support the
recommended use of test scores. In essence, the test should accurately measure what it is
purported to measure.
•
Types of validity may include:
» Content-related … the themes, wording and format of the items, tasks or questions closely resemble activities on the job
» Face … the test-taker agrees the test themes, wording and format of the items, tasks or questions are appropriate for the job
» Criterion-related …test scores correlate with job performance of jobholders
» Concurrent design… a study comparing test scores to current jobholder performance
» Predictive design…a study comparing test scores to future jobholder performance
» Generalization….when validity data gathered from one position is applied to another highly similar position
•
Determining Reliability…a test developer should demonstrate test items are related to their
associated factors and that test scores are consistent over time. In essence, the test should
deliver repeatable results from one administration to the next.
•
Types of reliability may include
» Inter-item…the statistical relationship between a specific test item and the factor it is
supposed tomeasure
» Test-retest…the consistency of the test score from one time to the next
PAGE 1
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
•
Recommended Documentation…the “Standards” recommend the following documentation:
» The intention and rationale for the test
» A discussion of procedures used in development and revision
» Explanation of the statistical processes used in development
» Discussion of how scales, norms and scores were determined
» Statistical studies showing relationships between test scores and job performance
» Demographic composition of subjects when available
» Explanations of test interpretation and use
» Guidelines, recommendations and cautions for administering the test
Section 2
Development of the Motivators
Most organizations invest more time and effort choosing a
$5,000 copier than choosing a $50,000 employee...
I. QUICK FACTS
1. How long is it?
55 items, 8th grade reading level, about 15-20 minutes to complete.
2. What kind of items does it have?
Depending on the version, short business-type statements that are answered using a 1 (never agree) to
4 (always agree) Likert scale, a 1 to 7 continuous scale, or a 1 to 6 Likert scale.
3. Why use this Likert scale?
The scale was chosen to maximize stability and accuracy. The clearer the scale, the more accurate the
test. For example, it is easier for a test taker to choose between “always agree” and “sometimes agree”
than it is to choose between “always agree”, “usually agree”, “frequently agree” and “sometimes
agree”.
4. How many factors does it measure?
10 factors, each having five questions (10 Motivators)…six factors address job fit, four address job
attitude and the remaining five questions consist of a lie scale which is not scored or presented.
PAGE 2
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
5. How were items developed?
By gathering data from about 30,000 people in business, factor- analyzing their responses into
“clusters”, examining which items best measured each cluster, giving the revised test to current
jobholders, and statistically comparing test scores with on-the-job performance ratings.
6. How is the Motivators administered?
Administrator sets up candidate with a test link, candidate clicks link to open and complete test,
administrator views and prints scores.
7. How is it scored?
Candidate scores are automatically compared against a normative sample of typical job applicants.
Results are calculated into percentiles and then ranked from highest to lowest.
8. What are “good” scores?
There is no “magic set” of correct answers. Good Motivators depends on each job; that is, the specific
Motivators associated with high and low job performance.
9. Does a high Motivator score mean the candidate has job skills?
No. Only an INTEREST IN USING the skills he or she has. For example, both Cliff Clavin (the TV
character) and Albert Einstein might score high in Frequent Problem Solving, but only one has the
skills to be a theoretical physicist. Contact us about other tools that measure skills.
10. How are “ideal profiles” set?
I. A group of job experts discuss each Motivator item and decide whether scores should be low,
medium or high.
II. Performance ratings are collected from supervisors of current jobholders (not performance
appraisals), jobholders complete a Motivators test, and ratings are statistically compared to Motivator
scores.
11. Is it legally credible?
Yes, assuming you set profiles as indicated above.
12. Is it accurate?
Yes. The test combines applicants’ responses to questions and compares the tally to a normative
population. Simply put, if the applicant provides high answers to five different questions about liking
to solve problems, we could conclude they like to solve problems. (Assuming you have not told them
that problem solving is important)
PAGE 3
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
13. Can an applicant fake the test?
Almost any test can be faked. The test is normed on an applicant database, meaning that it takes into
account the fact that applicants tend to try to make themselves look better.
14. How should I use the Motivators?
•
NEVER show an applicant the test scores. That would be unprofessional and take too long to
explain.
•
•
ONLY compare the applicant’s scores to the targets you identified with the job experts
•
DECIDE whether the answer would help or hinder the applicants’ predicted job performance.
VERIFY disparate scores by using “extreme-type” questions like, “There are jobs that range
from requiring considerable problem solving to ones that are fairly routine. Which types of
jobs do you prefer and why?”
15. Is it EEOC “Compliant”?
Trick question. The EEOC does not “certify” tests or test use. Every test user is encouraged to ensure
his or her tests are job related and that scores accurately predict job performance. Contact us is you
need assistance with this.
16. Can the Motivators be used for training?
We don’t recommend it. The Motivators were developed to predict job performance as part of a
comprehensive hiring system. It is not a training test.
17. How many people are in the current Motivators data base?
The number varies. Feelings about work and work values tend to change over time. Norms are
continually adjusted every few years to account for gradual social shifts in the way the applicants
respond.
18. How many people are in the entire Motivators development base?
Somewhere around 30,000 to 40,000. However, we only use the most recent scores to build norms.
PAGE 4
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
II. ATTITUDES, INTERESTS AND MOTIVATIONS
In spite of the need for high performance, research shows that there are still major differences in
productivity among employees. Adrian Furnham wrote that variance in productivity across workers
averages about two to one: that is, good workers produce about twice the output of poor workers. In
the weaving industry, for example, good workers produce 130 picks per minute compared to poor
workers’ rate of 62 picks per minute (the same ratio was found among hosiery workers, knitting
machine operators and taxi drivers). As the work becomes more complex, the productivity ratio
becomes even higher, so that a good physicist produces much more than twice the output of a poor
one (Furnham, 1992).
In the selling profession, good sales people are estimated to be more than twice as productive as poor
ones (Schwartz, 1983); and, about one-half of sales people have no ability to sell at all (Greenberg and
Greenberg, 1983). Among American managers, the estimated incompetence rate ranges between
60% and 70% (Hogan, 1990). In the insurance industry, the agent failure rate averages about 50%
the first year and about 80% over three years. In retailing, good store managers have lower staff
turnover, less inventory shrinkage and greater profitability than poor managers. In our own studies,
approximately 80% of the safety engineers in a major public utility showed significant need for
improvement in their ability to analyze problems.
If the impact of selecting good people is so obvious, why are there are still major differences in
performance among workers in so many positions and organizations? We believe critical areas of
performance are overlooked when candidates are assessed for either internal or external positions.
High Performance
For years, selection experts have maintained that productivity improves when an applicant’s
personality fits the organization’s style, culture, values, and strategies. For example, if a teamcentered organization were faced with a choice between two equally qualified applicants, common
sense would dictate that the person who enjoyed working in a team environment would generally
out-perform someone who liked working alone. Likewise, if an upscale bank wanted to deliver
above average customer service to high-income customers, it would make sense for the bank to pick
friendly service-oriented people.
In fact, selection research confirms that when an individual’s task skills (i.e., knowledge, skills
and abilities or “Aptitudes”) are combined with contextual skills (i.e., personality-based attitudes,
interests, and motivations or “Motivators”) the quality of the selection process is significantly
enhanced. For example:
•
When compared to selection based only on Aptitudes, adding Motivators such as Innovation
and Creativity and Frequent Problem Solving improve the validity of hiring decisions (Kinder
& Robertson, 1994).
•
In a meta analysis of 25 years of personality and performance research drawn from 117 studies
of managers, professionals, sales people, skilled, and semi skilled workers, researchers
concluded that extroversion predicted success in management and sales; openness to
experience predicted training ability; and, conscientiousness correlated with success in sales,
management, professional, skilled and semi-skilled positions (Barrick and Mount, 1991).
•
Adding personality items to the selection decision provides a more valid and enduring
measurement of learning, development, and future performance (van Zwanenberg &
Wilkinson, 1993).
PAGE 5
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
•
People perform better when an organization’s situational norms and values meet those they
believe are important (Diener, Larsen, & Emmons, 1984).
•
The result of good “fit” between job and person increases the chances of high productivity,
increased satisfaction, and positive attitudes that can contribute to organizational success
(Ostroff, 1993).
•
People with the right personality fit tend to be more rewarded by the organization (Furnham &
Stringfield, 1993).
Stability
Attitude, interest and motivational factors are stable and slow to change. Their endurance has been
verified over periods ranging from 16 months to five years regardless of employer or occupation. Even
adolescent pre-dispositions predict job satisfaction years later (George, 1992). Furthermore, in a study
of single-egg twins reared apart, psychologists concluded that approximately 30% of the observed
variance in job satisfaction was due to genetic factors (Arvey, Bouchard, Segal, & Abraham, 1989). The
stability of Motivator factors makes them exceptionally difficult to change and extremely important
to measure before making a hiring decision.
Job and Task Motivation
What Motivator personality factors are best? It depends. There is not one single set of Motivators that
work for all organizations, tasks, and positions. Cultures vary from organization to organization, jobs
vary from one department to the next, and management practices tend to vary with the manager
(Furnham, & Stringfield, 1993; Ostroff, 1993). In addition, our own research shows that different
combinations of Motivators affect different tasks. For example, the Motivators associated with
teamwork are different from Motivators associated with overall performance. The most accurate
Motivators are based on specific jobs, tasks, and organizations.
Defining Attitudes, Interests and Motivations
Motivators cannot be modeled only on high performers. High performance Motivators are only part
of the selection puzzle. The real value of Motivators includes their ability to predict both high and
low performance among equally skilled people. Building a Motivator model based exclusively on
high performers ignores Motivator factors potentially associated with low performance – a major
oversight that can lead to frequent hiring errors.
Because specific aspects of an organization’s culture, values and strategies affects selection of
applicants, prospective employees should be carefully chosen to achieve an optimal “range” of
productivity that maximize organizational performance while minimizing dissension or motivation
problems (Graham, 1986). Once a baseline set of Motivators is established, slight tailoring will
avoid hiring “cloned” associates who may be unable to adapt to changing conditions. When the
right Motivator personality factors are matched with the right Aptitudes in the right jobs, everyone
benefits.
PAGE 6
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
III. DEVELOPMENT
Early development of the basic Motivator factors began with collecting a wide range of data from
tens of thousands of male and female subjects employed in positions ranging from truck drivers to
presidents. This research resulted in a generalized set of seven factors that could easily be understood
and applied without a lot of technical explanation. We classified these factors into four thinking
styles (information processing) and three behavioral styles (interactions). The early survey was not
intended to be a complete theory of personality, but to explain a normal range of business behaviors.
They included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Conceptual unconventional, creative, unique, innovative
Analytical
problem solving, analysis, mathematical, investigative
Structural rule following, administrative, structured
Social social, concerned, friendly, interactive
Assertiveness risk taking, driven, assertive, forceful
Expressiveness social, outgoing, gregarious, extroverted
Flexible easy, accommodating, easy going, cooperative
The original model avoided complex psychological terminology, was simple to use, and easy to apply.
Over succeeding years, the utility of the original profile Motivators was confirmed in advertising
research, creativity workshops, team membership, selecting focus group members, communications
workshops, and employment counseling.
However, while the profile worked well as a tool for understanding thinking and behaving, it was not
designed to predict job performance. To become a valid and reliable performance measurement tool,
the profile needed significant revisions to measure traits associated with job effectiveness.
To this end, a thorough search of the selection literature was conducted to determine how the original
factors should be modified. Major sources of research that captured the redesign goals included
work done by Williams (Williams, 1989; Holland (Holland, 1985); Hogan, Raskin and Fazzini (Hogan,
Raskin & Fazzini 1990); and Barrick and Mount (Barrick & Mount, 1991).
Holland’s work is well respected for its merger of job characteristics with personality types
and is among the most widely accepted and used occupational counseling in the United States.
Holland proposed jobs and the personalities of people performing those jobs could be clustered
into six different personality areas. He called these areas Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social,
Enterprising, and Conventional. Realistic jobs and realistic personalities included risky, practical,
conservative, frank, and tangible factors. Investigative jobs included exploration, understanding,
scientific, and research. Artistic jobs included creativity, openness to experience, intellectual,
and innovative interests. Social jobs included helping, teaching, agreeableness, and empathy.
Enterprising jobs included status, persuasion, directing, and gregariousness. Conventional types
included routine, standards, practical, and orderly procedures (Gottfredson & Holland, 1991).
PAGE 7
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
Table 1 shows correlations between the seven profile factors and Holland’s RIASEC taxonomy of job
and personality combinations (N=37).
Table 1
Profile Factors and Holland Factors
Although the seven original factors fit Holland’s RIASEC taxonomy, there was little evidence that
indicated Holland’s job-fit model predicted job performance. Further literature review showed that a
different series of traits were associated with performance. For example:
•
Barrick et al., examined 117 studies of personality and performance to show that
conscientiousness consistently predicted performance
•
Hogan et al. reported that researchers at both the Center For Creative Leadership and
Personnel Decisions, Inc. found that failed or failing managers were often perceived as
vindictive, selfish, and untrustworthy (Hogan, Curphy & Hogan, 1994)
•
Williams verified that risk taking and dominance was substantially correlated with
performance in some sales positions (Williams, 1989)
•
Furnham linked a wide body of related personality factors to selection (Furnham, 1992).
The following tables (N=97) show the convergent and discriminant correlations between the
Motivator factors and the “Big 5” factors as measured by the NEO-FFI. The NE-FFI was developed by
Paul Costa and Robert McCrae based personality research conducted in the 1950’s showing that all
personality factors tend to cluster into five general factors. The B-5 model is well-respected, widely
researched and extensively used for vocational counseling, mental illness and behavior, defining
coping systems, and the like. Development, reliability and validity of the NEO-FFI is discussed in the
NEO-PI Professional Manual.
Convergent and discriminant correlation analysis with a well-established instrument purporting to
measure similar constructs is often used to establish construct validity for a new instrument. That
is, the seven EP factors and the NEO-FFI factors should have statistically significant correlations
between similar personality constructs and discriminant (i.e., small, insignificant, or nonexistent)
correlations between dissimilar constructs. Correlations shown in Tables 1 through 6 are significant
at the .05 level or better. Correlations in Tables 7 through 18 are significant as noted.
PAGE 8
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
Table 2
Analytical Factor
Table 3
Structural Factor
Table 4
Extraversion Factor
Table 5
Conceptual Factor
PAGE 9
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
Table 6
Social Factor
Table 7
Assertiveness Factor
Table 8
Willingness to Change Factor
Table 9
EP and NEO-FFI Factors
PAGE 10
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
As can be observed from these tables, the Emergenetics Profile shows strong convergent and
discriminant correlations with both the NEO-FFI sub-factors and the main factors. This pattern
provides evidence of construct validity. Additional tables are shown below.
Table 10
EP and NEO-FFI
Neuroticism Sub-Factors
Table 11
EP and NEO-FFI
Extraversion Sub-Factors
Table 12
EP and NEO-FFI
Openness Sub-Factors
PAGE 11
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
Table 13
EP and NEO-FFI
Agreeableness Sub-Factors
Table 14
EP and NEO-FFI
Conscientiousness Sub Factors
After several iterations using approximately 150 subjects chosen from different organizational
settings, factor-analytic results showed the seven revised profile scales remained robust while three
new performance factors emerged. The resulting ten factors were validated using inter-item analysis
and organized into ten homogenous-item composite (HIC) scales that, in various combinations, could
be associated with both job fit and job performance.
Each HIC contained seven distinct responses written to an eighth grade level and scored on a Likert
scale. Anchor descriptions on the Likert scale were chosen based on the Bass, Cascio and O’Connor
research to minimize the percentage of response overlap (Bass, Cascio & O’Connor, 1974).
PAGE 12
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
IV. INTER-ITEM RELIABILITY AND FACTOR
CORRELATIONS
Overall split-half and inter-item reliability analysis was conducted on the test content. Correlations
ranged from .72 to .91 as measured by Cronbach’s Alpha. Results are shown in Table 3.
Table 15
Inter-Item Alpha Scores
Convergent and discriminate relationships between the factors were also examined. Results are
shown in Table 4.
Table 16
Convergent and Discriminate
N=579
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).
PAGE 13
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
The ten Motivator factors should be considered “building blocks” suitable for screening applicants
based on personal work preferences; however, on-the-job behavior is seldom that pure. More often
than not, job-specific behavior is comprised of many behavioral elements. This can be shown when
the basic ten Motivator factors are factor-analyzed and individual elements rationally organized
into homogenous item composites. The compound factors are only reported in some versions of the
Motivators to help clients better understand how the individual Motivator factors might be observed
in job performance.
The following table shows how the basic ten Motivator factors combine into job-related behaviors:
Table 17
Compound Factor Combinations
DESCRIPTION OF THE BASIC 10 MOTIVATOR FACTORS
Frequent Problem Solving (FPS)
This factor provides information about a person’s attitude toward solving complicated problems.
People with high scores tend to prefer jobs that require a mental challenge and enjoy using their
minds to solve complex problems. Positions that do not provide a mental challenge may prove boring
to people who score high on this factor, while mentally challenging positions may intimidate people
with low scores. Sample Item: I enjoy the challenge of solving a logical problem.
Innovation and Creativity (IC)
Not everyone likes jobs that require freethinking and creativity. Some people just want to produce
a steady stream of traditional work. On the other hand, some organizations expect their people to
continually generate new and better ways of producing work. It would be de-motivating to put a
person with high creativity interests in a position requiring repetitive, unchanging work. Sample
Item: I’m known for my unconventional solutions to problems.
Desire for Structure (DfS)
There are many jobs that require methodical administration and follow through to see that tasks
are accomplished on time and on schedule. The traditional middle management position requires
maintenance and oversight of systems. Other jobs require a more freewheeling style such as sales or
positions that require making up rules as you go. Sample Item: I like to play it safe and go by the book.
PAGE 14
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
Willingness to Change (WtC)
Some jobs are steady while others change from day to day. People who thrive on fast pace and change
enjoy jobs that challenge them to keep pace, while people who prefer stability would burn out with
the pressure. This factor indicates a person’s adaptability to change. Sample Item: I don’t like jobs
where there is a lot of pressure.
Compete and Win (CW)
Being self-centered can be very damaging for both the organization and co-worker relationships.
Self-centered people spend much of their time thinking about themselves and the impact of decisions
on them personally instead of worrying about out producing and outsmarting the competition.
People with high scores on this scale indicate that they focus more on themselves than others.
Sample Item: I’m not above using people to get my way if I feel I’m right.
Close Personal Relationships (CPR)
Teamwork has been linked to success in many organizations; however, managers are often surprised
to find that some people prefer to work by themselves. People who enjoy working in teams are
naturally more productive and satisfied when working closely with other people. People who like
working alone are more productive working by themselves. Sample Item: I prefer jobs with close
teamwork and cooperation.
Expressive and Outgoing (EO)
There are many jobs that require outgoing personalities, such as selling, management, public
relations, or jobs that require positive public contact. People who score high on expressiveness label
themselves as outgoing and having many social contacts. Low scores indicate the person may not
have the interest or willingness to stand out in social settings. Sample Item: It is easy for me to start a
conversation with a stranger.
Quick Decisions (QD)
Jobs that require fast decisions and quick actions require people who enjoy that type of environment.
Too much impulsiveness, however, can lead to the “ready, fire, aim” syndrome. Some people are
driven to knee jerk reactions that get them into trouble because they did not think through the
consequences of their actions. Sample Item: Getting a job done is more important than how it is done.
Need to be Perfect (NtbP)
A small amount of perfectionism goes a long way. People with high perfection scores may never be
satisfied enough with the final product causing unnecessary delays and reductions in output. People
with too little perfectionism may be sloppy and unconcerned with quality. Sample Item: I insist on
taking time to perfect a project.
Priority of Job (P)
For some people, the office is a battleground between good (the employees) and evil (the
management). These people are either unable or unwilling to pull together for the common good or
focus on the primary importance of the customer. Their attitudes sap energy and become destructive
to both morale and productivity. Sample Item: It is OK to take long lunches and breaks if you are
underpaid.
In addition to the ten personality factors listed above, an imbedded lie scale was added to help assure
reliable responses.
PAGE 15
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
V. VALIDATION STUDIES
Traditional Predictive Criterion Validation Studies
Study 1
Position: Outbound Market Research
Raters: Supervisors using an overall three-point scale (low, average, high)
Test: Motivators Level Two (10 factor scores + consistency scale)
Number: 139 people
Correlation type: Spearman’s Rho
Table 18
Study 1
Study 2
Position: Inbound order taking
Raters: Supervisors using a ten-point scale for skill acquisition, a two-point scale for summary
performance and a three point scale
for overall performance
Test: Motivators Level Two (10 factor scores + consistency scale)
Number: 45 people
Correlation type: Spearman’s Rho
Table 19
Study 2
PAGE 16
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
Combined Studies
The next table is a compilation of about 5000 surveys from several different companies comparing
Motivator scores with performance ratings. It shows the uncorrected correlations between different
Motivator factors and people already on the job. All numbers reported here are statistically
significant at the P<.05 or p<.01 level. Non-significant data is blanked.
Table 20
Combined Studies
PAGE 17
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
Demographic Differences
The next three tables show Motivator average scores when “filtered” by demographics. The tables
below show demographic differences in average scores for age, race and gender.
Table 21
Demographic Differences
PAGE 18
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
VI. GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USE
Guide to Setting Motivator Scores
Motivators help scientifically identify people who prefer to think and act in certain ways. If
two applicants have equal skills, the person whose thinking and acting preferences meets job
requirements will generally outperform the other. Although the Motivators measure a broad range of
attitudes, interests and motivations, you could think it as simply being a “motivation measure.”
Motivators Vary With Job and Task
What Motivator personality factors are best? It depends. There is not one single pattern of Motivators
that work for all organizations, tasks, and positions. Cultures vary from organization to organization,
jobs vary from one department to the next, and management practices tend to vary with the
manager. In addition, our own research shows that different combinations of Motivators affect
different tasks. For example, the Motivators associated with teamwork are different from Motivators
associated with overall performance. The “best” Motivators scores are based on specific jobs, tasks,
and organizations.
Motivators Are Not Just Based on High Producers
It is major mistake to model Motivators on only high performers. High performance Motivators
are only part of the selection puzzle. The real value of Motivators includes their ability to predict
both high and low performance. Building a Motivator model based exclusively on high performers
ignores the Motivator factors potentially associated with low performance – a major oversight that
can lead to major hiring errors. Because specific aspects of an organization’s culture, values and
strategies affects selection of applicants, prospective employees should be carefully chosen to achieve
an optimal “range” of productivity that maximize organizational performance while minimizing
dissension or motivation problems. Once a baseline set of Motivators is established, slight tailoring
will avoid hiring “cloned” associates who may be unable to adapt to changing conditions. When the
right Motivator personality factors are matched with the right Aptitudes in the right jobs, everyone
benefits.
Motivators are NOT Skills
Motivator scores are self-report. Although we make every effort to minimize faking, a Motivators
score only has about a 2% to 8% relationship with “ability”. For example, both Albert Einstein (a
famous physicist) and Cliff Clavin (a Cheers TV character) may both have high problem solving
interests, but we know that Cliff has neither the education nor the skills to be a theoretical physicist
– that takes a separate kind of test. Managers should remember that high performance only happens
when a person’s job skill and job motivation are equal to job requirements.
So, then, how do you go about setting Motivators scores?
Step One: Discuss with job holders (not managers) the definition of each Motivator factor. Job holders
know the most about the job. Collectively decide if the Motivator score should be low, middle or high.
Remember, “good” is not high or low –“good” is what fits the job. Use the chart below to guide the
discussion. Circle the target scores described by the job experts.
PAGE 19
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
Table 22
Which Factors Match the Job?
Now determine if these factors make any difference in performance. For example, if Low Quick
Decisions was associated with the job, do high performers tend to be slow and precise (e.g., have low
impulsiveness) and are low performers fast and impulsive?
Review the last table and ask the group which factors make the difference between high and low
performance. Use the Table below and circle the “job-critical” Motivators with a red pen and circle the
“nice to have” Motivators with a blue pen.
PAGE 20
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
Table 23
“Job-Critical” versus “Nice to Have” Motivators
Interpreting Scores
•
The ten Motivator factors are directly related to job performance. Independent research shows
these factors are highly stable over time. They are not intended to be “training” or “coaching”
guides…The priorities you see in Motivators results are generally the priorities you get on the
job.
•
Motivators are not skills. They are applicant’s attitudes, interests and motivations about
whether to use the skills they have… Think of them as the “will do” part of the job.
•
Every factor score is calculated from responses to 5 statistically-related individual questions.
This reduces the effect of any single question on an overall factor score.
•
Each factor score is normed based on an applicant data base. This both minimizes applicant
attempts to “look good” and allows employers to compare an individual applicant to a
population norm. Ignore raw scores…the information is in the norms!
•
Individual Motivators factors are not-position specific. For example, our research shows
applicants for a highly technical position generally have the same score range of Frequent
Problem Solving as applicants for an executive or customer service position.
•
The Motivators are hard to fake. The applicant would have to know which questions load on
each factor, the norms for each factor, which items were in the reliability scale, and the overall
pattern required for the job.
•
The patterns and strength of the applicant’s Motivator factors provide the most critical
information.
PAGE 21
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
Priorities Score
The Priorities score evaluates applicants’ willingness to put job goals ahead of personal goals. A
person with high “Work Primacy” is willing to work overtime, work weekends, and make sacrifices
for the job. Because these items are “transparent”, we expect applicants to score high. In general, all
scores should be above 50%. Scores above 50% are indicated by a green check mark in candidate
results.
Work scores below 50% indicate a low job priority and are indicated in candidate results by a yellow
exclamation mark. We advise extreme caution with these scores.
Patterns
Now, it’s time to examine patterns.
Common sense tells us high job performance requires two things: 1) an ability to do the job; and 2)
willingness.
Ability without willingness leads to underperforming employees. Willingness without ability leads
to employees who make mistakes. Motivator patterns show employers something applicants are
reluctant to share in an interview: job willingness.
Now that we have excluded Reliability and Work scores, look at the top three Motivator scores. These
are things the applicant really “likes to do”; the bottom three Motivators as things they really dislike;
and ones in the middle as “take it or leave it”.
•
•
•
Top 1/3 = Strong Preference
Middle 1/3 = “Take it or Leave it”
Bottom 1/3 = Don’t like it
The following five examples are “stereotypical profiles” intended to give clients ideas about how the
Motivators work together to predict behavior.
In our experience, there can be substantial differences between one job and the next, even though
they might have the same title. Therefore, we encourage every organization to set specific internal
standards.
If you need help setting standards, we will be glad to work with you.
PAGE 22
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
This pattern tells us the position requires a great deal of emphasis on details and quality work. The
applicant will need to go by the book and follow (or implement) defined procedures. They will be
asked to address various problems throughout the day. This position will very much be an individual
effort, with little to no team or social contact. It also requires that the applicant be fairly inflexible--in
combination with the Desire for Structure at the top, this means always stick to the rules.
This position requires a high level of extraversion and competitive spirit. The applicant needs to
enjoy finding solutions to problems in order to reach goals. Winning is critical to this position. The
applicant need not get caught up with details and will not be working in a particularly structured
environment. It’s helpful if they are reasonably inflexible--in combination with Compete and Win,
they need to make the sale, but not give away the farm in doing so.
PAGE 23
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
For the Sales Farmer position, we’re looking for someone to build and maintain relationships with
clients. The applicant must enjoy helping the client solve problems and should have a flexible attitude
in meeting those needs. The position needs someone who won’t get too caught up with nit-picky
details and who can work in an unstructured environment. Lastly, we aren’t looking for someone to
make snap decisions, but rather, to work thoroughly through problems with the clients. Note that
even though this is more of a relational sales role, Compete and Win is still fairly high.
This Manager position requires that an applicant to be very team oriented; devoted to building
relationships with co-workers. This is someone who thrives in a structured environment where they
are asked to deal with numerous problems on a daily basis. The position requires deliberate decision
making and is not one that encourages a competitive drive. The applicant need not be focused on
small details as this position asks for a “big picture” perspective.
PAGE 24
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
This Inbound Customer Service role needs to be filled by someone who really enjoys problem solving
as well as constant contact with clients. The applicant needs to be flexible in dealing with client
needs, and does need to have a reasonable level of interest in building and maintaining relationships
(Close Personal Relationships is ranked 4th). The applicant shouldn’t “speak first, think second”--they
should take their time with customers and think thoroughly through decisions. With Need to be
Perfect ranked 9th, the job-holder should not be overly concerned with minute details that could hold
up the service process.
Conflicts
Experience shows some factors tend to cluster together while others are dramatically polarized. For
example, here are the factors that usually “avoid” each other (i.e., as one score goes up, the other score
goes down). “Weak”, “Mod”, or “Strong” refers to the strength of the avoidance.
Caution is advised when these scores fall “near” each other. For example, a high score in Compete and
Win and a high score in Willingness to Change is very unusual, as is a low score in Quick Decisions
and a low score in Close Personal Relationships.
Conflicting factor patterns may either indicate the applicant is internally conflicted or trying to fake
the survey. In either case, we advise caution.
Be careful not to confuse a Motivators score with ability. A Motivators score is a personal preference
of how the person describes himself or herself compared to the norm of the general population.
Research shows the correlation between being able to solve complicated business problems and a
motivation for problem solving is only around 2%. The correlation between being interpersonally
skilled and teamwork is only about 8%.
PAGE 25
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
GUIDELINES FOR PROBING APPLICANT MOTIVATORS
Motivators identify “hidden” areas an applicant may be reluctant to admit during an interview. They
are not like the bathroom scale. The scale does not have a personal agenda. Motivators are always selfreports. We try to stabilize Motivators data by using five items to measure each factor, converting the
score into a percentile that compares applicant’s scores with job applicants from a general population,
telling applicants we will be verifying answers, and using rating words that minimize reporting
error.
High and Low Frequent Problem Solving
Jobs fall into a wide spectrum. Some require ongoing mental challenge and never-ending problemsolving. Others are fairly routine and predictable. What have your past jobs been like? Which did you
like best? Why?
High and Low Innovation and Creativity
Some jobs require some really off-the-wall thinking and creativity. Others are straightforward and
no-nonsense. What have your past jobs been like? Which did you like best? Why?
High and Low Desire for Structure
Some jobs have a great deal of rules and regulations to follow, while others expect employees to be
independent and take risks. What have your past jobs been like? Which did you like best? Why?
High and Low Willingness to Change
Some jobs seem to change from day to day, while others tend to remain constant over long periods of
time. What have your past jobs been like? Which did you like best? Why?
High and Low Close Personal Relationships
Some jobs require you to work very closely with team members, even doing each others’ work; while
others require working alone with minimal interaction with co-workers. What have your past jobs
been like? Which did you like best? Why?
High and Low Expressive and Outgoing
Some jobs require you to be constantly outgoing and friendly with all kinds of people. Other jobs
expect you to be reserved and controlled. What have your past jobs been like? Which did you like
best? Why?
High and Low Quick Decisions
Some jobs require you move quickly and make decisions without much thought or preparation. Other
jobs expect you to think through your actions carefully before taking action. What have your past
jobs been like? Which did you like best? Why?
High and Low Need to be Perfect
Some jobs require you to be totally focused on details and produce perfect work all the time. Other
jobs require high productivity regardless of the quality. What have your past jobs been like? Which
did you like best? Why?
High and Low Compete and Win
Some jobs require you to be highly assertive, driven and competitive. Other jobs have a collaborative
atmosphere where the team is more important than the individual. What have your past jobs been
like? Which did you like best? Why?
PAGE 26
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
VII. CORRELATION WITH HOMOGENOUS ITEM
COMPOSITES (HICS)
The basic Motivators survey provides basic motivation data at the 10-factor level, but not all
motivation factors occur independently. For example, factor-analytical examination shows some
factors naturally cluster together forming homogenous item composites (HICs). HICs are clusters of
dissimilar factors that naturally tend to occur together.
For example, the Frequent Problem Solving Motivator might represent a preference for engaging
in challenging problems. In practice, however, a person might actually use a combination of
Creativity to generate new ideas, Problem Solving to analyze them and Planning toassure effective
implementation. This would represent a homogenous item composite that we might term
“comprehensive thinking”.
Data were collected from approximately 839 applicants and factor-analyzed to identify HICs that
empirically and rationally clustered together. The data were varimax-rotated, scree plots were
examined for eigenvalues greater than 1 and items were rationally extracted. The results are shown
as follows:
Table 24
Motivator Correlations with HICs
Validity and reliability data is being gathered.
PAGE 27
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
INTRODUCTION TO THE APTITUDES
Emerging Job Complexity
Many jobs in an emerging global economy are multiple-dimensioned. That is, employees are
expected to perform jobs that require a broad range of skills such as written documentation, oral
communication, identifying and managing details, solving problems, receiving voicemail, reading
and responding to email messages, and quickly learning and applying new information.
The dynamic nature of these jobs generated a major problem for organizations that wanted to quickly
and efficiently measure applicant skills. Few, if any written tests are able to capture these activities
and stand-alone computer simulations seldom deliver more than realistic job previews for a few
specific positions.
In response to the need for better pre-hire tools, data from hundreds of job analyses covering
thousands of positions were examined for common activities associated with either success of
failure. This review identified three major clusters of job competencies.
1. Communication…The ability to communicate and respond to principles, ideas and thoughts
expressed by co-workers, managers and customers This is an essential element of performance that
required employees to understand and spell common business-related words normally learned in
contemporary high school English classes; to read and respond to emails; and, to review and retain
information contained in voicemail messages.
2. Attention to Detail…The ability to quickly identify errors in numeric data. This skill is often
associated with error checking, editing, proof reading, and order entry accuracy. It often involves
working with numbers such as stocking units, inventory, accounting numbers and business reports.
These numbers are often presented to the employee on a computer or automated workstation.
3. Problem Solving…As organizations increasingly shift toward automation and expanded job
roles, problem solving and critical thinking has become a greater component of job performance.
Employees are increasingly expected to learn on the job and make many decisions that were
previously done by managers.
Computer-Based Administration
The worldwide proliferation of the internet has made computer-based operations an every day
part of office work. Computerized test administration has also been shown to be an effective prehire testing methodology. Computers can simulate situations similar to those encountered in a
typical organization: reading email, listening to voice mail and performing basic keyboard and
screen navigation tasks to solve typical business problems. Computerized test administration
provides a dynamic pre-hire testing environment that presents a candidate with series of carefully
administered active and interactive exercises that measure major dimensions of performance.
PAGE 28
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
SECTION 1
Overview of Aptitudes
The Aptitudes battery includes five exercises that present the candidate with content and criterion
validated items in a timed format. Three of the tests are delivered in typical question and answer
format. The fourth and fifth tests are delivered concurrently to evaluate the candidate’s ability to
multi-task.
Attention to Detail Exercise
The candidate has two minutes to examine 20 sets of three numbers and identify duplicates. This
exercise is content valid for jobs that require comparing numbers, completing forms accurately,
examining written data for inaccuracies, and other tasks requiring an ability to recognize subtle
differences in information.
Item example:
A company assigns SKU codes to each of their products. A valid code should contain three, different
7-digit numbers (i.e., numbers cannot be duplicated). Examine the following SKU numbers and
identify which ones contain duplicates:
Business Vocabulary Exercise (Part of the Communication Section)
The candidate has 5 minutes to read and decide which of 40 words are misspelled. If a word is
misspelled, the candidate is asked to spell the word correctly in the blank space provided. Words were
chosen from commonly misspelled business-related, high school vocabulary lists. This exercise is
appropriate for jobs that require correct spelling.
Example:
PAGE 29
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
Understanding Communication Exercise (Part of the Communication Section)
The candidate has 5 minutes to review 22 business-related statements and decide what they
mean. Words were chosen from high school vocabulary lists. This section is appropriate when it is
important for employees to have a broad vocabulary.
Example:
Mary’s boss told her to be discreet about the plan. That means Mary:
1. Should be cautious
2. Must tell others
3. Should volunteer her thoughts
4. Could make a decision
5. None of the above
Multi-Tasking Section
The candidate is given a total of 30 minutes to complete two separate tests delivered concurrently
on the same computer screen. On one side of the screen, the candidate is asked to solve as many of
20 business-related problems as possible in the time allowed. Concurrently, on the right side of the
screen, they receive 20 notifications announcing the arrival of email messages. Interspersed between
the email items are 20 questions about information contained in prior emails.
The multi-tasking section evaluates the candidate’s ability to effectively solve problems in an active
multi-tasking environment.
Problem Solving Example:
You take an inventory of office supplies every week. You noticed that 60 memo pads were used during the first week of August. On the average, how many memo pads were used each day that week?
1. 60
2. 50
3. 15
4. 12
5. none of the above
PAGE 30
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
DEVELOPMENT OF THE ITEMS
The Aptitudes items were developed over a period of two years by examining job analysis reports at
the content-level. This analysis identified three criterion skill domains that applied to a wide range of
jobs. These domains included verbal and written communication, paying attention to small details
and solving problems while being distracted by emails and voice mails.
Attention to Detail Section
Many jobs require the jobholder to review data and discern small differences and discrepancies. This
is especially true of job activities such as list-checking, comparing data, finding data entry mistakes,
reading and interpreting information from computer screens, and so forth.
Examining numerical data was a common element among a majority of jobs. To evaluate this
domain, we developed a simple task that involved visually scanning a fictitious product code looking
for differences and similarities between numbers. Comparing numerical data usually requires less
computational ability than analyzing data or using mathematical operators to solve problems.
Draft items were prepared and computer administered to jobholders in a wide variety of positions.
The initial battery consisted of 5 minutes to evaluate 40 items. It was gradually reduced though
successive trials and analysis to 2 minutes and 20 items. Items were retained only when 80% or less
of the subjects answered the item correctly and less than 20% answered incorrectly. The following
histogram shows the score distribution superimposed with a normal curve (AD = Attention to Detail).
PAGE 31
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
Communication Sections
Communication skills were evaluated using two sub tests: the ability to understand a statement
and the ability to spell common business related words. Both batteries used words drawn from high
school grade vocabulary lists. There were 45 initial draft items in the understanding communication
battery and 41 draft items in the spelling battery.
Draft versions of the test were computer administered to jobholders in a wide variety of positions.
Though successive trials and analysis of scores, the time limit and number of items were edited and
gradually reduced to 40 items and 5 minutes for the spelling subtest and 22 items and 5 minutes for
the understanding communication subtest.
Each item in the two communications exercises were also evaluated at the response level. The item
was discarded if more than 80% of the subjects answered the item correctly or more than 20%
answered incorrectly. The following histograms show the score distributions superimposed with
normal curves for both sections (UC = Understanding Communication; BV= Business Vocabulary).
PAGE 32
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
Multi-Tasking Section
Multi-tasking -- the ability to accurately solve problems while being distracted by interruptions -- is
present in many jobs. Modern day jobholders are consistently bombarded by emails, voice mails and
questions while performing their daily activities. In spite of these diversions, they are expected to
maintain clear thought and make accurate decisions.
This section includes problems presented on one side of a computer screen while messages and
questions are presented on the other.
Items for the multi-tasking subtest were developed from common business scenarios identified by
job analyses. They included functions such as analyzing data, making decisions and making routine
business decisions. Items were developed to represent practical business problems requiring basic
business math, data analysis and so forth.
The draft test included 40 problem-related items and 40 email items. Through successive trials
and analysis of scores, the time limit and number of items were edited and gradually reduced to 20
problem-related items, 40 email items and 30 minutes.
As discussed in the previous sections, items in the multitasking section were discarded if more
than 80% of the subjects answered the item correctly or more than 20% answered incorrectly. The
multi-tasking section includes three scores: problem solving, emails and a weighted combination of
Problem Solving and Email scores that represents the candidate’s ability to multi-task. The following
histograms show the score distributions superimposed with normal curves for all three sections
(Problem = Problem Solving; Email= Email; and MT=Multi-Tasking).
PAGE 33
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
PAGE 34
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
SCORING
There are many ways to score a test. These include opinion-based systems (i.e., someone
independently chooses acceptable scores), job-validity systems (e.g., scores are set by statistically
comparing applicant scores with current employee scores) and normative systems (i.e., applicant
scores are compared to an independent database.
We always recommend job-validated systems because comparing applicants with current employees
who perform the same job yields the best results. However, because many organizations are
reluctant to go through the rigor of a job analysis, by default, we norm scores using a broad base of
independent applicants. This allows clients to objectively compare one applicant with another. We
DO NOT recommend using opinion-based systems because of the potential for making wrong hiring
decisions..
Scoring for all exercises is done by analyzing the number of items correct andEach applicant score
is compariedng it to a norm of approximately 313 typical job applicants. The resulting number is
reported in percentiles. allowing clients the opportunity to compare individual candidates with a
typical applicant population. The following table shows the percentile distribution using a 20-point
percentile scale.
Statistics
PAGE 35
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
VALIDATION
Introduction
Before organizations can use tests to make important hiring or placement decisions, they need to
know that test scores have a statistical relationship with job performance. This process is called
“validation”. In other words, high test scores predict high job performance.
Validation
There are five terms generally associated with test validation: face, content, construct, criterion,
and generalizability. There are two terms generally used to define the design of a validation study:
predictive and concurrent. They are defined below:
•
“Face” validity means that test-takers generally agree test items appear to be job-related. Face
validity for the Aptitudes was determined during the early phases of test development when
beta-testers were asked to comment about the job-relatedness of specific terms and factors.
Objectionable items were deleted.
•
“Content” validity means the test content and test factors resemble the nature of the job.
Content validity of the Aptitudes were determined through multiple job analysis and
observation of business people working in either office or customer contact positions. Various
sections of the Aptitudes include paying attention to details; spelling and understanding
words and phrases based on a high school business vocabulary; and, performing problem
solving tasks while being asked to read and recall information. We believe the Aptitude
content represents a sample of typical job activities.
•
Construct validity refers to deep-seated mental constructs such as problem solving and
motives. The Aptitudes were not designed to measure mental constructs.
•
Predictive and concurrent refer to whether data is collected from current jobholders
(concurrent design) or from future job holders (predictive design). The Aptitudes were
developed based on both applicant and employee populations.
•
“Criterion” validity means that test scores are statistically related to performance. However,
there are many different ways to define “performance”. Sometimes performance is training
pass-rates, other times it is subjective supervisory opinion and still others it is “end of the line”
productivity. The following table shows data gathered from various productivity studies for
various clients (all data is statistically significant at the p<.05 level)
PAGE 36
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
Example Performance Correlations
Drawn from Various Organizational Studies
Comments on the table above:
Organizations tend to use similar terms to define entirely different sets of performance ratings.
This chart only illustrates that one or more Aptitude factors tend to correlate with different types of
employee performance depending on how the company defines “important”. For example:
•
Understanding Communication is negatively correlated Sales/Hour (-.246), Clarity (-.305) and
Performance Ratings (-.209) in some organizations, but positively correlated in another (.370).
Since Understanding Communication scores are associated with general level of intelligence,
this could mean that intelligent people take more time with clients and produce fewer sales as
a result.
•
In another example, Performance Ratings are strongly correlated with both Attention to
Detail (.390) and Business Vocabulary (.310) but not Communication, Problem Solving or
Recall.
The overall associations and correlation of the Aptitude scores thus depend on determining 1)
clear causal relationships with the specific performance criteria (i.e., does high problem solving
ability help or hinder sales productivity?); 2) an understanding that performance criteria might be
confounded within an individual study (i.e., sales/hour might be positively correlated with Problem
Solving, but negatively correlated with Attention to Details); and, 3) possible non-linear relationships
with performance (i.e., there can be too little, just right and too much of a good thing).
PAGE 37
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
The final validity factor is “generalization”. When two positions contain essentially the same content,
it is possible to generalize the validity data gathered from one job to the other. As shown in the
table of correlations above, different Aptitude factors tend to correlate with different aspects of job
performance.
The Aptitude battery is highly targeted toward specific job skills. We recommend establishing a clear
causal relationship between performance and each Aptitude criterion domain. For example:
We do not recommend using validity generalization with the Aptitude battery.
CONTACT INFORMATION FOR ESP’S DEVELOPER
R. Wendell Williams, PhD.
Phone: 770-792-6857
Email: [email protected]
PAGE 38
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
TECHNICAL REFERENCES
Arvey, R.D., Bouchard, T.J., Segal, N.L., & Abraham (1989). Job satisfaction: environmental and genetic
compositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74,
187-192.
Barrick, M.R. & Mount, M.K. (1991), The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta
analysis, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44, 1-26.
Bass, B.M., Cascio, W.F., & O’Connor, E.J. (1974), Magnitude estimations of expressions of frequency
and amount. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59 (3), 313-320.
Bommer, W. H., Johnson, J. L., Rich, G. A., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1995). On the
interchangeability of objective and subjective measures of employee performance: A meta-analysis.
Personnel Psychology, 48 (3), 587-605.
Bray, D. W. (1982). The assessment center and the study of lives. American Psychologist, 37 (2)
(February), 180- 189.
Byham, W. C. (1992). The assessment center method and methodology: New applications and
technologies. , 1-23.
Carmelli,D., Swan,G.E., Roseman,R.H. (1990), The heritability of the Cook and Medly Hostility Scale
revisited. Special issue: Type A behavior. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 5(1), pp. 107116.
Deiner, E., Larsen, R., & Emmons, R., (1984). Person x situation interactions: choice of situations and
congruence response models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 47, 580-592.
Digman, J.M., (1990). Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 41, 417-440.
DuBois, P.H., (1970). A history of psychological testing. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Fleischman, E.A., (1975). Toward a taxonomy of human performance. American Psychologist, 30, 1127
- 1149.
Furnham, A., (1992). Personality at Work: The role of individual differences in the workplace. London:
Rutledge.
Furnham, A. & Stringfield, P., (1993). Personality and occupational behavior: Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator correlates of managerial practices in two cultures. Human Relations, Vol. 46, No. 7.
George, J. (1992). The role of personality in organizational life: issues and evidence. Journal of
Management. Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 185-213
Graham, J. (1986). Principled organizational dissent: a theoretical essay. In Staw, B.M., & Cummings,
L.L. (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 8, pp. 1-52). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Greenberg, J. & Greenberg, H. (1983, December). The Personality of a Top Salesman. Nation’s Business,
pp. 30-32.
Gottfredson, G.D. & Holland, J.L. (1991). Professional manual. The Position Classification Inventory.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Heath, A.C., Jardine ,R., Eaves, L.J., & Martin, N.G. (1989). The genetic nature of personality: genetic
analysis of the EPQ. Personality and Related Differences, Vol. 10(6), 615-624.
Hogan, R. Curphy, G.J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: effectiveness and
personality. American Psychologist, Vol. 49, No. 6, pp. 493-504.
PAGE 39
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
Hogan, R., Raskin, R., & Fazzini, D. (1990). The dark side of charisma. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark,
(Eds.), Measures of Leadership (pp. 343-354). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.
Hogan, R. T. (1991). Personality and personality measurement. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough
(Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 2, 873-919). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Holland, J. L. (1985). Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of vocational personalities and work
environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kinder, A. & Robertson, I.T., (1994). Do you have the personality to be a leader? The importance
of personality dimensions for successful managers and leaders. Leadership and Organizational
Development, Vol. 15, No. 1, 3-12.
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1989). Cognitive processes in industrial and organizational psychology. In
C. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology .
New York: Wiley.
Lykken, D.T., Tellegen, A.,& Iacono, W.G. (1982). EEG spectra in twins: evidence for a neglected
mechanism of genetic determination. Physiological Psychology, March, Vol. 10(1), 60-65.
Macan, T. H., Avedon, M. J., Paese, M., & Smith, D. E. (1994). The effects of applicant’s reactions to
cognitive ability tests and an assessment center. Personnel Psychology, 47, 715-738.
McHenry, J. J., Hough, L. M., Toquam, J. L., Hanson, M. A., & Ashworth, S. (1990). Project A validity
results: The relationship between predictor and criterion domains. Personnel Psychology, 43, 335-354.
Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task and
contextual performance. Human Performance, 10(2), 71-83.
Murphy, K. (1982). Difficulties in the situational control of halo. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(2),
161-164.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished
from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475-480.
Neale, M.C., Rushton, J.P. & Fulker, D.W. (1986). Heritability of item responses on the Eysenck
Personality Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences. Vol. 7(6), 771-779.
Ostroff, C., (1993). Relationships between person-environment congruence and organizational
effectiveness. Group and Organization Management. Vol. 18, No. 1, March, 103-122.
Plomin, R., Lichtenstein, P., Pederson, N.L., McClearn, Gerald, E., et.al, (1990). Genetic influence on life
events during the last half of the life span. Psychology and Aging, March.
Raymark, P. H., Schmit, M. J., & Guion, R. M. (1997). Identifying potentially useful personality
constructs for employee selection. Personnel Psychology, 50(3)(Autumn), 723-736.
Rynes, S. & Gerhart, B., (1990). Interviewer assessments of applicant “fit”: an exploratory
investigation. Personnel Psychology, Vol. 43, 13-35.
Sackett, P. R. (1987). Assessment centers and content validity: Some neglected issues. Personnel
Psychology, 40, 13-24.
Sackett, P. R., & Dreher, G. F. (1982). Constructs and assessment center dimensions: Some troubling
empirical findings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67 (4)(401-410).
Sackett, P. R., & Hakel, M. D. (1979). Temporal stability and individual differences in using assessment
information to form overall ratings. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 120-137.
PAGE 40
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014
Schlesinger, L. (1991). Comments made while addressing the 1991 Instructional Systems Conference.
Schwartz, A.L., (1983). Recruiting and Selection of Salespeople. In Borrow, E.E. & Wizenberg, L. (Eds.),
Sales Managers Handbook (pp. 341-348), Homewood, IL: Dow Jones Irwin.
Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job
performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703-742.
van Zwanenberg, N. & Wilkinson, L.J., (1993). The person specification - a problem masquerading as a
solution? Personnel Review. Vol. 22, No. 7, 54-65.
Vernon, P.A., (1989) The heritability of measures of information processing. Personality and
Individual Differences. Vol. 10(5), 573-576.
Williams, R.W., (1989). Correlations between optimism, achievement, and production among
stockbrokers (M.S. Thesis, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1989).
Williams, R.W. (1998). Using Personality Traits to Predict the Criterion Space (Ph.D. Dissertation, The
Union Institute, 1998)
PAGE 41
©Emergenetics LLC, 2014