Sunday, May 19, 2013

Research update

Okay, I'm just gonna say it.  There is an insane amount of research out there directly or indirectly related to our field.  I'll be honest, it's a little daunting thinking about reading and processing all of it.

Luckily, you have me to overly simplify it for you so you can incorrectly describe it to others.  So let's jump right in!

First up, the June issue of IJSA:

Fairness perceptions matter in web-based selection too!

The predictive validity of conscientiousness is moderated by self-enhancement

-  Speaking of conscientiousness, it's a better predictor of performance in routinized jobs than those with complex cognitive requirements

Psychological hardiness predicts adaptability in military leaders.  This study is awesome also for showing a negative relationship between SAT scores and West Point performance.

Recruiters, listen up: this study found that contingent workers converted to full-time status performed as well as referral and online hires, but not as well as those sourced internally (bookmark this one, there's a dearth of recruitment research)

- Scoring biodata: empirical keying reigns supreme over rational and quasi-rational approaches.  Quasi-rational?  Sounds like me most of the time.

- Personality and job performance: interactions are important beyond main effects


Okay, next, the May issue of JAP:

- Adaptive decision making in military leaders: both the brain and the mind are important (okay you monists out there, chill out)

- Are you a MANOVA (wo)man?  Then read this.

- Proactive leaders set more challenging goals and have higher sales performance--assuming they have the trust of their subordinates.


Next, the April issue of JOB.  Just one study, albeit interesting, in which female evaluators were less likely to recommend hiring or promoting Asian (versus White) applicants into jobs requiring social skills


Speaking of JOB, how about the May issue?

- Have you been calling for more research on calling?  Your wish is granted.

- Curious about the concept of curiosity? (okay, I'll stop)  Looks like it can be predictive of job performance above and beyond traditional cognitive and non-cognitive predictors.  I'm gonna assume it varies with job, but I think the authors are probably right that it will increase in importance over time.

- When selecting for teams that may experience crisis situations (e.g., nuclear power plant crews), consider homogeneity--not mean levels--of positive affect.

- Moderate levels of supervisory structure combined with high levels of consideration lead to lowest levels of CWB's

- The dark side of OCBs

- The light side of OCBs

- Dark side and light side working together in a picture that has nothing to do with selection


Okay, onwards and upwards: one from the April issue of JASP, on generalized self-efficacy, work-related self-efficacy, and job-related outcomes


And one from the May issue:  Sensation seeking and need for structure predict military field exercise performance


How about a little EI research?  Haven't had a lot of that lately.  Here's a piece from the May issue of Journal of Management that found emotion management ability to be a valid predictor of job performance.


Let's look in the May Psychological Science:

- Where we find a fascinating study that demonstrates assessment of profound cognitive abilities at a young age predicts outstanding contributions in many adults

- Another interesting study of how an individual responds to daily stressors (which I would posit are differentially found in various jobs) has long-term consequences for their mental health

- High schoolers with high math and verbal skills are less likely to choose STEM careers than those with math skills but moderate verbal skills

- Okay, check this one out: mindfulness training improved GRE reading comp scores as well as working memory.  Implications for personnel assessment??


Shifting to the May Psychological Bulletin:

- Rorschach, anyone?

- Believing that individuals are malleable, rather than fixed ("implicit theory") predicts goal achievement.  Implications for leaders?


Last but not least, let's hook up with our friends at PARE and see what they're up to:

- Into Excel?  Check out this article on forest plots

- Or maybe factor analysis is your thing.


That's all folks!  Hope your brain is spinning like mine!

4 comments:

Karl Jaeger said...

What are your thoughts on using a motion type assessment for selection (Melnick et al, 2013)? In general or as a proxy for cognitive skills? It appears to be culturally unbiased (not sure about gender). Where might it first appear in a hiring context? My guess - a high tech company, though they may keep it quiet. It seems to be quicker to administer than a traditional cognitive assessment. Face validity could be an issue unless the job involves spatial skills. But applicants may have better reactions to it compared to tests that require more thought, and thus anxiety.

http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=6422

BryanB said...

Karl - as Zachary Quinto would say, "fascinating." I've thought for years that in the modern office environment the ability to shield oneself from distractions is enormously important. Heck, it can be important if you're in a factory.

Without a better description of the subjects and adverse impact it's hard to say how it compares against traditional ability tests. I think you're right about the face validity--in most cases it would be abysmal. But like all assessments, it all depends on a link to the job. As you suggest, high tech might be one possibility. I would think something like air traffic controller would have an even stronger link. Military as well.

Thanks for sharing! BTW here's a link to the in press version: http://www.bcs.rochester.edu/people/Duje/papers/13_Melnick_IQ_CB.pdf

Gaurav Kapil said...

Hey Bryan,

Thanks for another update.

I do not have access to these journals due to cost/mobility. Will you point 1-2 good journals which are free to read?

Gaurav

BryanB said...

Gaurav - thanks for the question. Unfortunately access to journals is a major hinderance in bridging the academic/practitioner gap. Its a topic I've complained about numerous times over the years.

Your best bet is to obtain articles through a local university, if there is one. Otherwise, Google the title and you might get lucky.

Anyone else out there, I'm open to suggestions!

Bryan