Employee motivation – a critical success factor for companies

Selecting the right fit in terms of corporate values and motivation structure is a key challenge in the recruitment process. Employee motivation is also important in development. Motivation analysis offers a starting point from which an employee’s performance and competencies can be developed further. This is particularly relevant in situations in which the employee acts in a spontaneous and subconscious way, or where there is a strong correlation between the professional role and an individual’s personal values.

The views questionnaire can help you efficiently and reliably identify the motives and values of your employees and applicants.

"We were particularly impressed by the reliability and flexibility of the 360° feedback system."Lydwina von der Grün, Sparkasse Nürnberg

Predicting who will be a successful expatriate

To determine the ‘success factors’ for expatriates - and to understand which individuals will be able to adapt best in a new country in the future - cut-e’s research team has conducted a study to identify if the personal characteristics of returning expatriates can predict success. This report summarises the study and highlights a best practice model.

Adaptive testing to allow short questionnaires

Adaptive testing to allow short questionnaires

views uses the adalloc™ adaptive measurement technology developed by cut-e. This technology allows a highly sophisticated profile of personal values to be created with a very short questionnaire.

Principles of views interpretation in a nutshell

The predictive validity of any person’s value system is especially high in situations where the individual value system of the acting person is highly activated and/or the acting person realizes a link between the personal values and the current options for activities or the acting person is acting spontaneously and subconsciously.

The principles underlying the views interpretation are: 

  • motivation as one factor amongst several (personality, knowledge, cognitive abilities, health, situational conditions) for predicting competencies and job success
  • motivation questionnaires have a fairly high validity to predict job performance
  • results of motivation questionnaires are one source for drawing a conclusion, to support and complement a mixture of assessment methods
  • motivation questionnaires are an efficient method to assess one’s motivation, values and interests validly
  • motivation, values and interests distinguish between different individuals
  • a disparity between the views results, which are derived from self-description, and the occupational context the person is in indicates a strong need for exploration – this could indicate that the candidate has to challenge his/her career path or that he/she is under stress
  • results are generally recommended to be validated in a feedback discussion

Ask the expert: Is loyalty the same as integrity?

Loyalty and integrity are, quite simply, not the same concept and cannot be used synonymously.

Loyalty is concerned with faithfulness or a devotion to a person, a country, a group, or a cause. Integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations and outcomes and is typically associated with honesty and truthfulness.

It is quite feasible that a person can display low integrity and yet still be loyal - or be disloyal with integrity. Consider the examples of blind obedience where out of loyalty, questionable behaviors occur or, in the opposite situation, if someone perceives unfair treatment and acts with integrity he or she may display disloyal behavior against an organization or institution as in the case of "vive la revolution".

Did you know? Assessment Barometer results show:

  • Values are becoming more important, with 46% of respondents using values questionnaires
  • Combined assessment – not separate tests – is on the increase 

Reference Reading

Ashton, M. C. (1996). Personality and job performance: the importance of narrow traits. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 289-303.

Baron, H. (1996). Strength and Limitations of Ipsative Measurements. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 69, 49-56.

Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-25.

Bartram, D. (1996). The relationship between ipsatized and normative measures of personality. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 25-39.

Bartram, D. (2007). Increasing validity with forced-choice criterion measurement formats. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 263–272.

Brown, A. & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2012). Fitting a Thurstonian IRT model to forced-choice data using Mplus. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1135-1147.

De Vries, A., de Vries, R. & Born, M. P. (2010). Broad versus narrow traits: Conscientiousness and honesty-humility as predictors of academic criteria. European Journal of Personality, 25, 336-348.

Dudley, N. M., Orvis, K. A., Lebiecki, J. E. & Cortina, J. M. (2006). A meta-analytic investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job performance: Examining the inter-correlations and the incremental validity of narrow traits. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 40-57.

Griffith, R. L., Chmielowski, T. & Yoshita, Y. (2007). Do applicants fake? An examination of the frequency of applicant faking behavior. Personnel Review, 36, 341-357.

Heggestad, E. D., Morrison, M., Reeve C. L. & McCloy, R. A. (2006). Forced-Choice Assessments of Personality for Selection: Evaluating Issues of Normative Assessment and Faking Resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 9-24.

Hicks, L. E. (1970). Some properties of ipsative, normative and forced choice normative measures. Psychological Bulletin, 74, 167-184.

Justenhoven, R. T. (2014). Adaptive allocation of consent – Innovative Itemformate zur Messung von Persönlichkeit. Unveröffentlichte Masterarbeit. Hamburg: Hochschule Fresenius.

Kurz, R., Bartram, D. & Baron, H. (2004). Assessing potential and performance at work: The Great Eight competencies. Proceedings of the British Psychological Society, 4, 91-95.

Lohff, A. & Wehrmaker, M. (2008). AdallocTM – adaptive scales for online questionnaires. In W. Sarges & D. Scheffer (Hrsg.), Innovative Ansätze für die Eignungsdiagnostik (S. 239-251). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Salgado, J. F. (2003). Predicting job performance using FFM and non-FFM personality measures. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 323-346.

Saville, P. & Willson, E. (1991). The reliability and validity of normative and ipsative approaches in the measurement of personality. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 219-238.

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274.

Sitser, T., van der Linden, D. & Born, M. P. (2013). Predicting Sales Performance with Personality Measures: the Use of the General Factor of Personality, the Big Five and Narrow Traits. Human Performance, 26, 126-149.

cut-e product finder

Search amongst over 40 different online psychometric assessments for the right test or questionnaire to suit your needs.
Search by
Topic
Job
Instrument
Contact us

Call us at +1-212 935-0370

or contact us here

Subscribe to talentNews