The behavioural science behind AssessioAI

Recognize Core Values and Their Impact on a Work Performance

 

The Theory of Universal Human Values, created by Shalom H. Schwartz, is a cornerstone in social and cross-cultural psychology for understanding human values across cultures. Originally identifying ten value orientations in 1992, Schwartz and colleagues refined this to 19 values in 2012, presenting them as part of a circular motivational continuum. These values are not just beliefs but are deeply tied to emotions, guiding individuals in selecting or evaluating actions, policies, and people in their lives and workplaces.

Values act as motivational constructs, representing the goals individuals strive to achieve and guiding behaviour towards what is considered worthwhile. Unlike norms and attitudes, which are situation-specific, values are abstract goals that transcend specific actions and situations, providing a framework for behaviour across various contexts. Each person prioritises these values differently, creating a unique value system that influences their decisions and actions. This hierarchy of values is what distinguishes an individual’s value system from mere attitudes or norms.

For values to influence behaviour, they must first be activated and deemed relevant to the situation at hand. Values that are considered important are more readily activated and thus have a stronger influence on behaviour. This activation is particularly likely when faced with decisions that have significant implications or when important values might be compromised. The relevance of a value in a given context enhances our awareness of it, guiding us to choose actions that align with our value system.

Values also dictate how individuals perceive and respond to potential outcomes of their actions. High-priority values, which are closely tied to one’s self-concept, trigger automatic affective responses to actions that either threaten or support these values. This process influences not only how individuals perceive their environment but also how they plan and execute actions that align with their values.

---

Values circle: compatible and conflicting values

The refined values theory is based on the assumption that values form a circular motivational continuum. The values on the continuum are based on their compatible and conflicting motivations - expressing self-protection versus growth, and personal versus social focus.

In one part of the circle, you have values that are about looking out for yourself, like staying safe (personal security). This is the self-protection side. Then, as you move around the circle, you start to see values that are more about growing as a person, learning new things, and pushing your limits, which is about personal growth.

On another part of the circle, there are values focused on how we relate to other people and the world around us. Some of these are about putting others first and being a good member of the community, which is the social focus.

The closer any two values are on this circle, the more they can work together harmoniously. For example, wanting a constant challenge (a growth value) can go hand in hand with being creative (another growth value). They're neighbours on the circle because they both involve expanding your horizons.

However, some values might be on opposite sides of the circle because they have conflicting motivations. For example, if having a lot of creative freedom is important then rules and tradition have less space in your life. Or if someone values having a lot of control then most probably they don’t care so much for humility as this won’t help them to achieve control.

Openness to Change

Openness to Change values underscore an individual's drive to pursue intellectual and emotional interests through innovative and adaptive approaches. These values foster a work environment that thrives on flexibility, innovation, and a willingness to explore uncharted territories.

Here’s how these values manifest in a work setting:

• Creative Freedom: In a workplace context it’s an atmosphere where employees feel empowered to explore new ideas and solutions. This value nurtures innovation and adaptability, allowing teams to tackle challenges with fresh perspectives and inventive strategies.
• Autonomy: Autonomy in the workplace is about giving employees the space and authority to guide their own tasks and make decisions. Autonomy supports personal and professional growth, driving employees to excel and take initiative, which in turn can benefit the organisation’s productivity and creativity.
• Challenge: Valuing challenge involves encouraging employees to push beyond their comfort zones and tackle demanding projects. This value instils a culture of resilience and perseverance, where employees are motivated to engage deeply with their work and pursue excellence. A workplace that embraces challenges is one that sees obstacles as opportunities for growth and learning, leading to continuous improvement and sustained employee engagement.

In essence, Openness to Change values cultivate an organisational culture that is dynamic, innovative, and inclusive. Managers who embrace these values demonstrate a readiness to consider employee suggestions, delegate responsibility effectively, and involve everyone in decision-making processes.

This approach leads to the development of more horizontal organisational structures, where employees have defined roles but are also given the freedom to independently contribute to the organisation's success.

Self-Enhancement

Self-Enhancement values in the workplace revolve around the drive for personal success, control, and enjoyment. These values influence managerial behaviours and the quality of interactions within teams.

Here’s how these values manifest in a work setting:

• Pleasure: Valuing pleasure in the organisational context means creating a work environment that prioritises the enjoyment and well-being of employees. This could involve integrating more social activities, flexible work options, and initiatives that make work more enjoyable.
• Achievement: The value of Achievement emphasises the importance of setting and accomplishing goals, not just at an individual level but across the organisation. Managers who prioritise achievement are likely to foster a culture of cooperation and collaboration, ensuring that all members of the organisation work together towards common objectives.
• Control and Capital: Power values,Control and Capital, underscore the significance of having authority over resources, decisions, and direction. In a balanced organisational context, this does not necessarily translate to autocracy. Instead, it involves strategic leadership where decision-making is clear, and resources are efficiently allocated. Managers who wield their power wisely can inspire respect and ensure that the organisation operates smoothly, navigating through challenges effectively.
• Reputation: The value of reputation involves building and maintaining a positive image. In organisational context it can mean the self-image as well as the overall organisational image. This value can drive efforts to achieve excellence, ethical standards, and community engagement, contributing to a strong organisational identity and pride. A focus on reputation encourages employees and managers alike to uphold the highest standards in their work and interactions, enhancing the organisation’s standing both internally and in the wider community.

In essence, self-enhancement values when integrated thoughtfully into the workplace, can lead to a dynamic and high-achieving environment. These values guide the behaviour of managers and employees alike, shaping the way goals are set and achieved, how pleasure and well-being are integrated into work, and how power is exercised and balanced. Ultimately, these values contribute to a workplace where individuals are motivated to excel, take pride in their work, and enjoy their contributions to a larger purpose.

Self-transcendence

Self-Transcendence values are about going beyond one's own self-interest to support the well-being of others and the environment. These values shape a workplace culture that is inclusive, ethical, and community-oriented.

Here’s how these values manifest in a work setting:

• Nature: Valuing nature involves a commitment to preserving the natural environment, which can translate into organisational practices that prioritise sustainability and environmental responsibility. This reflects a broader Universalism value, which emphasises the importance of treating all individuals and communities with respect and fairness, encouraging diversity, and fostering an inclusive workplace where every employee feels valued and heard.
• Justice: Value of justice reflects in creating a workplace where equality, fairness, and protection are represented. It involves establishing transparent policies and practices that ensure everyone is treated fairly and equitably, from hiring and promotion to daily interactions. A justice-oriented culture encourages managers to advocate for fairness and equality, not just within the organisation but in the broader community and supply chain.
• Tolerance: Emphasising tolerance in the workplace means fostering an environment where differences are not just tolerated but valued as a source of strength and innovation. This includes accepting and understanding diverse backgrounds, perspectives, and ideas, which enrich the organisational culture and contribute to more creative and effective problem-solving.
• Loyalty: In the workplace it translates to reliability and trustworthiness, creating a stable and secure environment where employees feel confident in their roles and in their relationships with one another.
• Kindness: In the workplace it is about actively contributing to the well-being of colleagues, ensuring a supportive and empathetic workplace where people are motivated to look out for each other.

Conservation

Conservation values focus on maintaining stability, tradition, and adherence to established norms and expectations. These values contribute to a workplace culture prioritising order, reliability, and societal security.

Here’s how these values manifest in a work setting:

• Conformity: Valuing Conformity involves adhering to rules and norms that ensure smooth and predictable interactions within the organisation. This translates to employees enjoying following established procedures, respecting authority, and maintaining harmonious relationships in the workplace. Conformity helps in creating a structured environment where roles and expectations are clear, minimising conflicts and enhancing efficiency.
• Rules: Valuing Rules means appreciating a consistent framework governing employee behavior and organisational processes. This includes clear policies, codes of conduct, and standardised procedures that everyone is expected to follow.
• Tradition: Tradition values emphasise respect for cultural heritage, established practices, and long-standing organisational rituals. In a workplace setting, this can involve honoring company history, upholding legacy practices, and celebrating traditional events or milestones. By valuing tradition, organisations foster a sense of continuity and identity, which can strengthen employee loyalty and commitment.
• Societal Security: The value of Societal Security is about creating a safe and stable environment, both within the organisation and in its interactions with the broader community. This involves implementing measures that protect employees' well-being, such as health and safety protocols, job security policies, and community engagement initiatives. A focus on societal security ensures that the organisation contributes positively to social stability and is seen as a reliable and responsible entity.

In summary, conservation values guide behavior toward creating an orderly, reliable, and secure workplace. These values encourage leaders to prioritise the stability and well-being of their employees, adhere to established norms and practices, and foster a sense of continuity and respect for tradition.

In summary, self-transcendence values guide behaviour towards creating a workplace that is not only productive but also nurturing and ethical. These values encourage leaders to prioritise the welfare of their employees, involve them in key decision-making processes, and establish genuine connections that enhance their well-being.

---

The role of Values in the workplace

In the workplace, understanding and respecting the universal human values can significantly impact hiring, team building, and organisational culture.

For hiring managers, this means looking beyond skills and experience to consider how a candidate's values align with the company's culture and goals. Values-based approach to hiring supports the development of a cohesive, motivated, and productive workforce.

For leaders and managers, acknowledging the power of values in influencing behaviour is crucial for effective team building, conflict resolution, and leadership strategies. Encouraging a workplace where values are openly discussed, understood, and aligned can lead to more motivated, committed, and cohesive teams. Ultimately, by embracing the significance of values in shaping behaviour, organisations can foster a work environment where both individuals and the company can thrive.

When team members share similar values, it fosters a stronger sense of unity and belonging. This can lead to improved communication and collaboration, as team members are more likely to be driven by similar motivations and understand each other's perspectives.

Aligning values helps in minimising conflicts. Disagreements may still occur, but they are less likely to escalate and are more easily resolved when there is a fundamental values-based understanding among team members.

If the team and/or candidate assessment reveals values that might not align with the rest of the organisation, it is recommended to address potential challenges during. Having some differences doesn't immediately suggest that the team couldn't work together, especially if both parties are aware of these differences. Discussing such situations can help prevent future conflicts.

Employees whose personal values align with their team and organisational values tend to be more motivated and engaged. They find more meaning in their work, contributing to higher levels of job satisfaction and productivity. Teams that share a common set of values are likely to find it easier to make decisions, as these values provide a consistent framework or lens through which options can be evaluated.

While core value alignment is important, diversity in how values are prioritised and expressed can enrich a team. Hiring managers should recognize the benefits of diverse perspectives and experiences that align under the umbrella of shared core values. Consider how a candidate's values might complement or disrupt the current team dynamics.

---

How should I use Values insights in a hiring situation?

Look beyond immediate needs to consider whether a candidate's values suggest they will remain a good fit as the organisation evolves. For example, if the organisation is going through directional changes, consider which values would support the change. Candidates whose values are in alignment with the anticipated direction of the team and organisation are more likely to be successful in the long run.

Use AssessioAI personality assessment to:

• Understand the core values of the team, with which you would expect some alignment from the candidates.
• If there are differences in values, discuss them during the interview to assess whether collaboration would be possible or uncomfortable.
• Consider whether introducing different values would be necessary to help the organisation go through the desired change.
• Post-hiring, use information about the candidates' values to create a motivating work culture.

Things to look out for:

• Even though our values shape how we see the world, there is no right or wrong set of values. Keep that in mind and don't judge the candidate, even if it's hard to understand their set of values.
• Not every value has to be aligned, and not every difference in values means people can't work together. Always use interviewing as the final method to evaluate a possible collaboration.

---

The reliability and validity of psychometric instruments

This whitepaper is written in collaboration with Jüri Allik, a Professor of Experimental Psychology, Tartu University. He is a Foreign Member of the Finnish Academy of Science and Letters[1], Academia Europaea[2], and the Estonian Academy of Sciences[3]. His works have been cited in 29016 publications[4].

Evaluating the quality of psychometric instruments

All good instruments for measuring personality traits are long. For example, MMPI-3 (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory version 3) consists of 567 questions. The personality questionnaire NEO-PI-R/3 (NEO Personality Inventory Revised or version 3) includes 240 questions. The questionnaires measure several traits at the same time (for example, NEO-PI-R/3 measures 30 different personality traits that are divided into five clusters or dimensions. There are several parallel questions with approximately the same meaning for a reliable measurement of each trait. For example, in NEO-PI-R/3-s, each trait is measured with a sub-scale that has eight parallel questions. There is a good reason for the number of items because they are needed for the consistency and authenticity of these measurements.

Each measurement instrument—typically a scale consisting of multiple questions or items— is characterized by two main properties: reliability and validity.

Reliability

Reliability characterizes how consistently something is measured or, in other words, how small is the measurement error. For example, if we want to evaluate the reliability of a bathroom scale, we might weigh ourselves two or three times. If the result is different every time, then the scatter of the results shows the measurement error. If the variance - a measure of scatter - is small or doesn’t exist at all, we can conclude that the scale is reliable, giving us the same results on each occasion.

Similarly, the best way to test the reliability of psychological instruments is repeated measurement. This is called test-retest reliability. If the measurement is repeated in a couple of days or weeks, then we must assume that the trait we intended to measure has not changed during this relatively short time interval. For example, repeated testing with an average 2-year interval resulted in an average correlation of .66 for the 30 subscales of NEO-PI-R-i (Kallasmaa, Allik, Realo, & McCrae, 2000, Table 1). Another example, the Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale (RSES), which consists of 10 questions. The two-week test-retest reliability of this instrument was .84 (Pullmann & Allik, 2000, Table 2). Approximately the same test-retest reliability can be assumed for NEO-PI-R/3 subscales if the re-testing interval is no longer than one or two weeks.

As repeated testing is time-consuming, a more convenient method is to calculate a scale’s internal consistency. The best-known formula is Cronbach’s alpha, which is the mean correlation between questions or items (Cronbach, 1951). The higher the correlation between items, the higher reliability of this instrument. For example, the average Cronbach’s alfa for the NEO-PI-3 subscales is .76 (Costa & McCrae, 1992, Table 5). There is the Spearman-Brown prediction (also prophesy) formula relating Cronbach alpha to test length used to predict the reliability of a test after changing the test length. This formula tells us that there is no better option for the increase of scale reliability than increasing the number of items.

If this alpha value of .76 looks modest for someone, then it is necessary to warn that higher reliability can be attained often by artificially bloating up the scale. For example, it can be done by including items with very similar meanings. Thus, it might be good advice to avoid both very low and high alphas.

Validity

Validity characterizes how well a scale measures what was intended to measure. It is possible to have a scale with high reliability (very small measurement error) but low validity. Thus, an exemplary Cronbach alpha is not a guarantee that we are measuring something that was required or planned.

For instance, if a bathroom scale shows the same measure every time, but the result is considerably different than the actual weight, then it is measuring something else with high precision. However, in the world of weighing machines, we can always buy a new scale which satisfies our demands. It is much more complicated with a psychological measurement where we do not have explicit units of measurement (think about the “unit” of neuroticism, for instance) or etalons. In practice, we are compelled to use incomplete solutions relying on the best scale that is currently available for a measure of a trait we are interested in. For example, if someone creates a new personality measure, the results can be compared to NEO-PI-R or its latest version, NEO-PI-3 (McCrae, Costa, & Martin, 2005). In the textbooks, it is typically called concurrent validity.

However, the lack of objective standards or units of measurement can be compensated in several ways. For example, knowing that the measurable trait causes certain phenomena, we can check if these consequences co-exist with measured traits. This is called predictive validity. For example, it is known that depression (the neuroticism subscale, N3: Depression in NEO-PI-R) predicts suicidal thoughts and attempts. Consequently, the predictive validity of N3-e would assume a correlation between the intensity of suicidal thoughts and the high number of suicidal attempts among people who rate high in N3: Depression.

Another form of predictive validity is an agreement between the ratings of two judges, usually a person and somebody who knows her or him well. If a person’s self-ratings allow us to accurately predict the ratings of another informant—a relative, partner, colleague, or friend—then this is one of the best validity indicators. The agreement between self-other ratings is the necessary condition for assuming that we are dealing with the same existing characteristic, not with phantasies in somebody’s head. Agreement or consensus between judges is one of the best criteria for the validity of personality judgements (Allik, De Vries, & Realo, 2016). Although the agreement between two opinions is not guaranteed that they are true - it is possible to agree on what is totally untrue—agreement in the description of personality is very often a sign of their reality.

If the situation with the validity of psychological measurements looks desperate, it is useful to remind the history of the length measurement. The first measures of length were body parts like the foot or forearm. To level the individual differences, the average of measures of twenty randomly selected persons was typically used. An important step to eliminating subjectivity was defining the meter as a part of the meridian (one-tenth of the millionth part from the length of a meridian from the equator to the North Pole). The standard platinum rod of the
equivalent length is still held in Paris. The latest way for defining a unit of length is by measuring the time it takes for light to cover this distance in the vacuum. As we still do not have the standards for neuroticism or extraversion, human psychology is still somewhere on the level of the length measurement when feet (about 0.3 m) and cubits (0.533 m) were the main units of length.

Until we haven’t invented the standards yet, it is most reasonable to examine all measurement results with common sense and decide if these are in accord with our understanding of the phenomena we want to measure. If the results are consistent and they fit well to our best knowledge, then we may have a modest level of confidence that we succeeded in measuring what was desired and planned.

Quality of instruments used on the Wisnio platform

The science of measuring different psychometric characteristics of individuals and evaluating the quality of such measures has not changed significantly in decades, and well-documented and comprehensively researched instruments are publicly available.

In spite of that, the usefulness of such instruments in predicting work-related outcomes has been modest at best (Zell, Lesick et al., 2021). In our experience, the main limiting factor is not that the available instruments are of low quality (although this is often the case) but rather how these instruments are used.

Leadership assessment is often the final element of the hiring process, and in most cases, only the chosen candidate is asked to participate in an assessment centre. The outcome of that assessment centre describes certain characteristics of the candidate and sometimes points out a few potential risk factors or personal development areas. In most cases, those findings are in no way connected to the job context or the characteristics of the team they will be working with. As the hiring decision is typically already made by that time, this information might help with onboarding and development in the future but typically has little to no impact on the quality of the hiring decision.

Considering the above, our focus has not been on trying to incrementally improve the quality of psychometric instruments but rather on making the data useful and actionable for practical decision-making purposes. Therefore, Wisnio uses publicly available and extensively researched and validated psychometric instruments - Shalom Shwartz’s Questionnaire of Universal Human Values and the IPIP120 Personality Inventory.

Reliability of the instruments

The values inventory (based on Schwartz’s refined values theory) has a mean Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient of 0.70 (SD = 0.08) measured across 49 cultural groups. For the four higher-order values, the mean Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient is 0.84 (SD = 0.03) (Schwartz & Cieciuch, 2022).

The personality inventory is based on IPIP120, which is a shortened and simplified version of the NEO PI-R. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients of the 30 personality facets range from 0.63 to 0.88, with three facets with a reliability coefficient of less than 0.7 (Johnson, 2014). For the five main dimensions, alphas range from 0.87 to 0.90, with a median of 0.88 (Maples, Miller, Carter, 2014).

Validity of the instruments

IPIP120 is designed to approximate NEO PI-R and measure largely similar constructs with a simplified instrument. Correlations between IPIP120 and NEO PI-R facets are over 0.66(Johnson, 2014). Correlations between self-other ratings of IPIP-NEO scales (0.38 to 0.58) indicate that IPIP-NEO scales are working as well as the original, longer scales (Johnson, 2014). Detailed comparison tables between IPIP-NEO and other popular instruments based on the Five Factor Model (including Hogan HPI, HEXACO, MPQ, NEO PI-R) can be found on the International Personality Item Pool database (https://ipip.ori.org/, 21.02.2022).

The relationship between Big Five personality characteristics and different aspects of job performance and work-related behaviours has been studied extensively, and meta-analysis consistently indicate that each Big Five trait is a valid correlate of performance (Zell & Lesick, 2021). Similarly, hundreds of primary studies and several meta-analyses have been conducted on team effectiveness and how personality diversity and values similarity impacts team processes, engagement, and outcomes. A comprehensive literature review on the topic is published by Mathieu et al. (2008).

Salom Shwartz’s theory of Universal Human values has been repeatedly validated in numerous controlled studies in over 80 countries (Schwartz, 2017). Over the 40 years since the publication of the original theory, it has been cited in more than seventeen thousand scholarly articles. Various validation methods are used for this, such as importance ratings of values, direct similarity judgment tasks, pile sorting, and spatial arrangement and even for how the values of other people, such as family members, are perceived.

The value theory makes two claims to universality. First, people in all cultures recognize the same set of basic values. Second, these values form the same circular motivational continuum in all cultures (Schwartz, 2017). It has also been shown that people can assess other people’s values whom they know well accurately (Dobewall et al., 2014). Self-other agreement in four higher-order values (median r = .47) and six culture-specific value factors (median r = .50) was proved substantial. Therefore, other ratings of personal values can be used to validate and complement self-report value measures.

Summary

The psychometric qualities of instruments incorporated on the Wisnio platform are of high quality - their validity and reliability are proven in numerous controlled studies, which are publicly available. Based on that, we can ensure that the instruments measure the characteristics they intend to measure and that they do so consistently. Based on numerous meta-analyses, we know that the characteristics evaluated by Wisnio help to predict performance, tenure, work engagement, and several aspects of team cohesiveness and collaboration. The strength of those relationships - meaning the predictive validity of such instruments - depends mainly on how the data is used. Measuring irrelevant details with a high degree of accuracy is less useful than developing a robust understanding of relevant data. Due to that, Wisnio is designed to ensure that psychometric data is viewed in the context of a specific team and job and that the information is used constructively.

References:

1. Allik, J., De Vries, R. E., & Realo, A. (2016). Why are moderators of self-other
agreement difficult to establish? Journal of Research in Personality, 63, 72-83.

2. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, Fl.: Psychological Assessment Resources.

3. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.

4. Dobewall, H. et al (2014). A comparison of self-other agreement in personal values versus the Big Five personality traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 50.

5. International Personality Item Pool, https://ipip.ori.org/, 21.02.2022.

6. Johnson, J. (2014). Measuring thirty facets of the Five Factor Model with a 120-item public domain inventory: Development of the IPIP-NEO-120. Journal of Research in Personality, 51.

7. Kallasmaa, T., Allik, J., Realo, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2000). The Estonian version of the NEO-PI-R: An examination of universal and culture-specific aspects of the Five-Factor Model. European Journal of Personality, 14, 265-278.

8. Maples, J.; Miller, J.; Carter, T. (2014). A Test of the International Personality Item Pool Representation of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory and Development of a 120-Item IPIP-Based Measure of the Five-Factor Model. Psychological Assessment, 26-4.

9. Mathieu et al (2008). Team Effectiveness 1997-2007: A Review of Recent Advancements and a Glimpse Into the Future. Journal of Management, 34-3.

10. McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., & Martin, T. A. (2005). The NEO-PI-3: A More Readable Revised Neo Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84(3), 261-270.

11. Pullmann, H., & Allik, J. (2000). The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: its dimensionality, stability and personality correlates in Estonian. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 701-715.

12. Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1).

13. Schwartz, S.H. (2017). The Refined Theory of Basic Values. In: Roccas, S., Sagiv, L. (eds) Values and Behavior. Springer.

14. Schwartz, S., Cieciuch, J (2022). Measuring the Refined Theory of Individual Values in 49 Cultural Groups: Psychometrics of the Revised Portrait Value Questionnaire. Assessment 29-5.

15. Zell, E.; Lesick, T. (2021). Big five personality traits and performance: A quantitative synthesis of 50+ meta-analyses. Journal of Personality, 2021 1-15.

_________

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Academy_of_Science_and_Letters

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academia_Europaea

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_Academy_of_Sciences

[4] https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=xaxV8_8AAAAJ&hl=en
​