On ethically solvent leaders : the roles of pride and moral identity in predicting leader ethical behavior.

The popular media has repeatedly pointed to pride as one of the key factors motivating leaders to behave unethically. However, given the devastating consequences that leader unethical behavior may have, a more scientific account of the role of pride is warranted. The present study differentiates between authentic and hubristic pride and assesses its impact on leader ethical behavior, while taking into consideration the extent to which leaders find it important to their self-concept to be a moral person. In two experiments we found that with higher levels of moral identity, authentically proud leaders are more likely to engage in ethical behavior than hubristically proud leaders, and that this effect is mediated by leaders’ motivation to act selflessly. A field survey among organizational leaders corroborated that moral identity may bring the positive effect of authentic pride and the negative effect of hubristic pride on leader ethical behavior to the forefront

Reconsidering The Use Of Personality Tests In Personnel Selection Contexts

Although long thought to be unrelated to job performance, research in the early 1990s provided evidence that personality can predict job performance. Accompanying this research was a resurgence of interest in the use of personality tests in high-stakes selection environments. Yet there are numerous potential problems associated with the current operational use of personality. As such, 5 former journal editors from Personnel Psychology and the Journal of Applied Psychology (2 primary outlets for such research), who have collectively reviewed over 7,000 manuscripts and who have no vested interest in personality testing, reconsider the research on the use of personality tests in environments where important selection decisions are made. Their comments are based on a panel discussion held at the 2004 SIOP conference. Collectively, they come to several conclusions. First, faking on self-report personality tests cannot be avoided and perhaps is not the issue; the issue is the very low validity of personality tests for predicting job performance. Second, as such, using published self-report personality tests in selection contexts should be reconsidered. Third, personality constructs may have value for employee selection, but future research should focus on finding alternatives to self-report personality measures. © 2007 BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC

Are We Getting Fooled Again? Coming To Terms With Limitations In The Use Of Personality Tests For Personnel Selection

We recently published an article in which we highlighted a number of issues associated with the use of self-report personality tests in personnel selection contexts (Morgeson et al., 2007). Both Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran, and Judge (2007) and Tett and Christiansen (2007) have written responses to this article. In our response to these articles we address many of the issues raised by Ones et al. and Tett and Christiansen. In addition to a detailed response, we make the following 4 key points: (1) Our criticisms of personality testing apply only to the selection context, not to all research on personality; (2) the observed validities of personality tests predicting job performance criteria are low and have not changed much over time; (3) when evaluating the usefulness of using personality tests to select applicants, one must not ignore the observed, uncorrected validity; and (4) when discussing the value of personality tests for selection contexts, the most important criteria are those that reflect job performance. Implications for personality testing research and practice are discussed. © 2007 BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC