IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/inorps/v8y2015i02p294-301_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do We Really Need New Constructs? An Argument for Adapting Individual Predictors to Dynamic Environments

Author

Listed:
  • Varghese, Lebena
  • Lindeman, Meghan I. H.
  • Santuzzi, Alecia M.

Abstract

Neubert, Mainert, Kretzschmar, and Greiff (2015) argue that the variable and dynamic nature of new job roles requires employees to demonstrate skills such as complex problem solving (CPS) or collaborative problem solving (ColPS). We argue that assessing CPS and ColPS in place of traditional assessment would be criterion deficient. We argue that traditional personnel assessments are important even for 21st century jobs. In this commentary we attempt to (a) highlight the contribution of currently assessed individual predictors and job skills in relation to personnel selection and (b) discuss how those traditional assessments can inform performance even in dynamic environments, such as those experienced in team-based work.

Suggested Citation

  • Varghese, Lebena & Lindeman, Meghan I. H. & Santuzzi, Alecia M., 2015. "Do We Really Need New Constructs? An Argument for Adapting Individual Predictors to Dynamic Environments," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 294-301, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:8:y:2015:i:02:p:294-301_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1754942615000371/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:8:y:2015:i:02:p:294-301_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/iop .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.