Problem 2: cognitive intelligence and job performance

Question 1

compensatory model for job performance (the relationship)

Answer 1

as cognitive intelligence decreases, the association between Emotional intelligence and job performance increases

Question 2

Cote and miners EI + CI + JP relationship study:
- method
- hypotheses

Answer 2

measures: emotional intelligence (MSCEIT), cogn intelligence (test), job performance (supervisors), organisational citizenship behaviour (supervisors)
-hyp 1: association between EI and task performance becomes more positive as CI decreases
-hyp 2: association between EI and OCB becomes more positive and CI decreases

Question 3

cote and minders EI + CI + JP study:
-results
-conclusion

Answer 3

• hyp 1 supported: EI and JP become more positively associated as CI decreases
• hyp 2 supported: agreeableness and extraversion were correlated with task performance and OCBO
  -conclusion EI is a strong predictor of OCBO and task performance when CI is low/decreasing

Question 4

cote and minders EI + CI + JP study:
-limitations

Answer 4

• low interrupter reliability for supervisor ratings
• there could be other explanations for these results

Question 5

schmidt and hunter article:
- goal

Answer 5

• examining GMA as a predictor of occupational level and job performance + relationship between GMA and performance itself

Question 6

schmidt and hunter article
- cross sectional evidence
- longitudinal evidence

Answer 6

• cross sectional: GMA increases someone’s occupational level + low GMA find it hard to do high level occupations
• longitudinal: early GMA measurement predicts later occupational attainment + GMA does not predict initial job level at entry

Question 7

theory of situational specificity

Answer 7

GMA predicts job performance only sporadically –> proved wrong, it can predict JP for almost all jobs

Question 8

specific aptitude theory

Answer 8

specific aptitudes might affect JP more than GMA because performance on specific job requires different specific aptitudes –> proved wrong, GMA is better predictor than specific aptitudes

Question 9

influence of job experience

Answer 9

more experience –> more opportunities to learn –> higher chance at better JP, however: individual differences in learning are influenced by GMA (stronger predictor)

Question 10

ability vs experience in association with performance

Answer 10

-correlation between GMA and performance remains stable (/increases) over time
-correlation between experience and performance decreases eventually

Question 11

personality vs GMA in predicting job performance

Answer 11

conscientiousness is the best predictor of job performance, then openness and neuroticism, however GMA is still a more important predictor

Question 12

conclusion of the schmidt and hunter article

Answer 12

GMA has a 0.5 correlation with job performance and occupational level & GMA is a better predictor for high level jobs + job knowledge is a mediator between GMA and job performance

Question 13

boyle article:
- goals

Answer 13

• goal: investigate relationship between EI and job performance, seeing if it can explain unique variance beyond the FFM and three streams are investigated

Question 14

streams of EI research

Answer 14

• 1: ability tests + performance tests
• 2: ability test + self report
• 3: trait measurement + mixed/questionnaires

Question 15

boyle article
-hypotheses

Answer 15

1a: all EI streams are sign. and positively related to JP
1b: each separate stream is associated with JP
2: EI is positively related to all FFM factors but negatively to neuroticism
3a: stream 1 is more strongly related to cognitive ability
3b: stream 1 will show the weakest association with personality measures, 3 the strongest
4: the streams show incremental validity and relative importance in predicting job performance

Question 16

boyle article:
-results
-limitations

Answer 16

• hypotheses confirmed
  -JP was too focused on task performance, OCB and counterproductive workplace behaviour weren’t taken into account
  -restricted range: only hired individuals were included
• number and type of moderators are limited to those reported in the literature

Question 17

article by Kerr, Garvin, Heaton and Boyle
-goal
-method
-results

Answer 17

• examining relationship between EI and ratings of leadership
  -method: EI, leadership was measured using supervisor ratings
  -results: mixed relationship: reasoning (managing and understanding) was not correlated with leadership.
  -experiential (perceiving and using) was sign related to performance
  -positive correlation between total EI and supervisor leadership ratings