Expert vs. general working sample differences in KSAO improvability ratings and relationships with measures relevant to occupational and organizational psychology

Abstract

A broad sample of workers from the U.S. workforce as well as a group of Ph.D.s in Applied or I‐O Psychology rated a varied set of KSAOs in terms of the extent to which each KSAO could be improved by people through effort. Results in the general working population reflected a type of ‘Horatio Alger myth’ of work‐related human capability, or a belief that it is possible to change most of any work‐related attribute of oneself through effort. Expert psychologists did not agree with the worker sample, differentiating among KSAOs to a greater extent and rating KSAOs as less improvable overall. We initiated a taxonomy of perceived improvability of KSAOs, providing some indication of the expected perceived improvability of KSAOs. Within the worker sample, observed differences in ‘improvability’ ratings could be attributed mainly to individual differences in people. These individual differences related to a broad set of other important individual measures relevant to occupational and organizational psychology, including motivation for employee development, attitudes towards selection tests and performance appraisal systems, learning/performance goal orientation, and job analysis ratings of KSAO importance and needed at job entry. The total set of results strongly suggests that KSAO improvability ratings may be an additional tool that can be used effectively to understand some aspects of occupational and organizational psychology.