Over the course of this term, we have discussed a wide range of topics pertaining to the employee recruitment and selection process. I think one thing in particular that I felt was important to both learn and know for the future is criteria when it comes to measuring performance.
The difference between maximal and typical performance is something that I thought was really interesting. It was noted in the lecture that performance is a result of motivation and ability. When looking at someone who has maximal performance, they have a natural talent for the job and perform the best in situations where they are put under pressure. Additionally, they might not always be totally motivated on a day to day basis, but they always come through with results when it really counts. Then you have someone with typical performance who performs well consistently and is always willing to put in their best effort. What sets these people apart is that they do not perform as well under pressure. One of our posts was about deciding what kind of job each of these people would be best at, and also deciding which one we would hire. If performance really does equal motivation AND ability, then I think ideally you would want to hire someone who is a mixture of both performance levels. This is definitely something I will take with me as I start my career because I feel it is important to be both able and motivated as an employee.
Looking at it from an employer side of things, I think it is also important to recognize the desirable aspects of criteria: relevance, discriminability, reliability, and practicality. I think that if the way an employer measures performance does not tap into each of these aspects, it makes it very unclear what they expect out of their employees. You have to set up some reliable and consistent way to separate the people who are performing well and the ones who might need a little more help. Otherwise, there is less room for improvement and the company as a whole will suffer.