1 / 20

The Goldilocks principle – too much, too little, or just right?

The Goldilocks principle – too much, too little, or just right?. John Hackston, OPP Ltd Swati Kanoi, University of Oxford. Getting it just right. Using non-linear relationships. Danger-zone profiles. Ideal profiles and profile matching. Qualification grids. The study.

nerina
Télécharger la présentation

The Goldilocks principle – too much, too little, or just right?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Goldilocks principle – too much, too little, or just right? John Hackston, OPP Ltd Swati Kanoi, University of Oxford

  2. Getting it just right

  3. Using non-linear relationships Danger-zone profiles Ideal profiles and profile matching Qualification grids

  4. The study • Managers attending 5-day leadership development programme • N=279; 58% male, 81% white, 45% degree level • Tools: 16PF, Benchmarks What do nonlinear relationships add?

  5. Nonlinear models • Linear • Quadratic • Cubic • Power • S • Logistic • Exponential

  6. Variables • Leadership • Derailment • Promotability • Performance (Self and boss ratings) Each relationship was tested with linear and nonlinear regression

  7. Findings: linear relationships best • Emotional stability with self-ratings of leadership, derailment and promotability • Dominance with self-ratings of leadership, derailment, promotability and performance • Rule consciousness with boss rating of leadership and self rating of derailment

  8. Mixed linear and nonlinear (1) Liveliness: • Linear with self-ratings of leadership and performance • Quadratic with self-rating of promotability

  9. Liveliness and self rating of promotability Linear .046 Quadratic .072 Cubic .072 Power .062 S .066 Exponential .049 Logistic .069

  10. Mixed linear and nonlinear (2)

  11. Regression - summary • C, E, G show linear relationships; other scales more mixed • Of 35 significant results, 20 explained better by nonlinear relationships • Of the nonlinear relationships, half are best explained by cubic regression and only 4 by quadratic

  12. Quadratic or cubic? Boss perf. with M

  13. What do non-linear relationships add?

  14. Boss performance rating How to convert these to danger-zones or qualification grids?

  15. Danger zone and qualification grid

  16. Danger zones and qualification grids Produce danger zones and qualification grids for the other 3 factors Refer to handout, pages 2-3

  17. Possible danger zones and grids

  18. Conclusions • Some support for nonlinear relationships • In predictive work, consider hypotheses • Nonlinearity offers only modest returns over linearity • In nonlinear relationships, the middle isn’t always best • With danger-zones and qualification grids, even nonlinear relationships may give a linear result

  19. References Benson, M.J. & Campbell, J.P. (2007). To be, or not to be, linear: An expanded representation of personality and its relationship to leadership performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 232-249. CCL (2001). Benchmarks Manual. Center for Creative Leadership. Huy, Le, Oh, I., Robbins, S.B., Illies, R., Holland, E. & Westrick, P. (2011). Too much of a good thing: Curvilinear relationships between personality traits and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 113-133. Kulas, J. T. (2013). Personality-Based Profile Matching in Personnel Selection: Estimates of Method Prevalence and Criterion-Related Validity. Applied Psychology, 62, 519–542. Russell, M. & Karol, D. (2002). 16PF Fifth Edition Administrator’s Manual. Champaign, IL: IPAT Inc. Seber, G. A. F., & Wild, C. J. (2003). Nonlinear regression. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Whetzel, D.L., McDaniel, M.A., Yost, A.P. & Kim, N. (2010). Linearity of Personality-Performance Relationships: A large-scale examination. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18, 310-320).

  20. Thank you. Any questions? Download from www.opp.com/bps_dop_2014

More Related