El profesor Paul Sackett, catedrático en la Universidad de Minnesota, es un reconocido experto en Psicología de las Organizaciones y en Metodología. Con motivo de su visita en Madrid para participar como conferenciante en el VII Seminario de la Cátedra MAP, impartirá también una charla sobre su investigación actual, el día 25 de Junio, jueves, en dos sesiones, en horario de 16:00 a 18:00 horas en el Seminario 1 de la Facultad de Psicología de la UAM. Resumen de las dos sesiones de la conferencia: Which Personality Attributes Are Most Important in the Workplace? Employees face a variety of work demands that place a premium on personal attributes, such as the degree to which they can be depended on to work independently, deal with stress, and interact positively with coworkers and customers. We examine evidence for the importance of these personality attributes using research strategies intended to answer three fundamental questions, including (a) how well does employees' standing on these attributes predict job performance?, (b) what types of attributes do employers seek to evaluate in interviews when considering applicants?, and (c) what types of attributes are rated as important for performance in a broad sampling of occupations across the U.S. economy? We summarize and integrate results from these three strategies using the Big Five personality dimensions as our organizing framework. Our findings indicate that personal attributes related to Conscientiousness and Agreeableness are important for success across many jobs, spanning across low to high levels of job complexity, training, and experience necessary to qualify for employment. The strategies lead to differing conclusions about the relative importance of Emotional Stability and Extraversion. We note implications for job seekers, for interventions aimed at changing standing on these attributes, and for employers. Assessment Centers vs. Cognitive Ability Tests: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom on Criterion-Related Validity Separate meta-analyses of the cognitive ability and assessment center literatures report higher validity for cognitive ability tests in predicting job performance. We instead focus 17 samples in which both assessment center and cognitive ability scores are obtained for the same examinees and used to predict the same criterion. We thus control for differences in job type and in criteria that may have affected prior conclusions. In contrast to Schmidt and Hunter's (1998) metaanalysis, reporting mean validity of .51 for ability and .37 for assessment centers, we found mean validity of .16 for ability and .31 for assessment centers; values corrected to unreliability in the criterion are .21 for ability and .40 for assessment centers. We posit that two factors contribute to the differences in findings: a) assessment centers being used on populations already restricted on cognitive ability, and b) the use of less cognitively-loaded criteria in assessment center validation research.