A few new journal issues have come out lately:
Summer 2016 Personnel Psychology, including:
Transparency of Assessment Centers: Low Criterion-related Validity but Greater Opportunity to Perform?
May 2016 Journal of Applied Psychology, including:
Initial impressions: What they are, what they are not, and how they influence structured interview outcomes.
Racioethnicity, community makeup, and potential employees’ reactions to organizational diversity management approaches.
June 2016 International Journal of Selection and Assessment, including:
Applicant Reactions to Selection Events: Four studies into the role of attributional style and fairness perceptions
Behavioral Cues as Indicators of Deception in Structured Employment Interviews
The Role of Self-focused Attention and Negative Self-thought in Interview Anxiety: A test of two interventions
The Influence of Candidate Social Effectiveness on Assessment Center Performance Ratings: A field study
Discrimination due to Ethnicity and Gender: How susceptible are video-based job interviews?
A Comparison of General and Work-specific Personality Measures as Predictors of Organizational Citizenship Behavior
The Perceived Nature and Incidence of Dysfunctional Assessment Center Features and Processes
Who is Being Judged Promotable: Good actors, high performers, highly committed or birds of a feather?
Showing posts with label OCB. Show all posts
Showing posts with label OCB. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 04, 2016
Sunday, January 04, 2015
2014 Research of the Year (+ research update)
Happy New Year! As I've done in previous years, I present below the research articles I ran across in this area that I think were the most impactful and/or important of 2014. But first, let's catch up on two issues:
First, the Winter issue of Personnel Psychology:
- Situational judgment tests have been shown to be useful for measuring interpersonal skills, but beware: levels of "angry hostility" moderate that relationship. (Is there a happy hostility?)
- When hiring leaders, should you look for those that have a busy home life, or be wary of them? In this fascinating study, the authors found that leader family-to-work conflict negatively impacts followers in that it can increase their burnout. However, family-to-work enrichment increased follower engagement through leader engagement. So the answer is, as usual, not simple: home/family life can be a good thing for followers if it makes the leader more engaged; but if the home/family life is increasing burnout, the leader may pass that along to others. So it would seem it all depends on how the individual is handling their life outside of work!
Let's look at the November issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology:
- Are men or women perceived as better leaders? According to this meta-analysis, it depends on how you ask the question. If you limit the question to other-ratings, women are rated significantly higher. But if you look at self-ratings, men rate themselves significantly higher. Which leads to the next question: is it a biological perception or a gender perception, and if the latter, what traits are the most important?
- An intriguing study of how applicant confidence interacts with and can be altered by the recruitment experience, in this case among recruits for the U.S. military.
- Next, a study of employment and job search efficacy. Not surprisingly, within-person frequency of job search behavior correlated with job offers; interestingly, the relationship between perceived job search progress and efficacy beliefs were moderated by beliefs of internal attribution.
- Last but not least, more evidence of the importance of defining the criteria when predicting job performance. In this meta-analysis, the researchers found more support for personality traits out-predicting cognitive ability in predicting counterproductive work behavior, that the two predictors are approximately equal in predicting organizational citizenship behaviors, and that cognitive ability outperforms personality when predicting task and overall performance. So do you want high task performance, OCBs, or do you want to avoid CWB? :) (of course the situation is even more complicated depending on whether you're looking at individual, team, leader performance, over what period of time, etc.)
Okay, on to the awards! Without further ado, here are my nominations for Research of the Year for 2014:
1) Important advancements in our understanding of weight-based discrimination at work: Vanhove & Gordon.
2) A study of applicants posting faux pas on their social networking sites: Roulin.
3) Two important looks at assessments delivered remotely via mobile devices: Arthur, Doverspike, Munoz, Taylor, & Carr, and Morelli, Mahan, & Illingworth.
4) Two fascinating looks at personality at work: Judge, Simon, Hurst, & Kelley; and Wille & De Fruyt
5) An excellent study of how effective staffing and training practices impact firm-level flexibility and adaptability: Kim & Ployhart.
6) An important study of the movement of impactful I/O researchers to business schools: Aguinis, Bradley, & Brodersen.
7) The relationship between conscientiousness and job performance is more accurately described as curvilinear: Carter, Dalal, Boyce, O'Connell, Kung & Delgado
Finally, honorable mention to two great developments in 2014: the change of some publishers to making access to articles more affordable, and the announcement of an additional journal, the Journal of Personnel Assessment and Decisions.
I'm continually amazed at the quality of thought and research in our area and the passion and practicality you exhibit. Here's to an amazing 2014 and more in 2015!
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Research update
Well, it's that time of year again. No, not the holidays. No, not winter (or summer, depending on where you are!). Research update time! And I think you will agree with me that there is a lot of interesting research being reported, on traditional topics as well as emerging ones.
First, the November issue of JOB:
- Do transformational leaders increase creative performance and the display of OCBs? Well, that may depend on how much trait affectivity they had to begin with. A reminder to not make blanket statements like "X type of leadership causes Y type of behavior."
- There is seemingly endless debate about the utility of personality inventories. This study reminds us--again--that in assessment research there are few simple answers. The authors describe how a particular combination of personality measures correlated with task performance among professional employees, but not non-professionals. (yes, I said task performance)
Next, the Winter issue of Personnel Psychology (free right now!), much of which is devoted to corporate social responsibility (CSR):
- Do perceptions of CSR drive job pursuit intentions? It may depend on the applicant's previous justice experiences and their moral identity.
- Oh, and it may also depend on the extent to which applicants desire to have an impact through their work.
- There is a debate in the assessment center literature about whether competency dimensions are being measured or if it's purely a function of the assessment type. This study suggests that previous research has been hamstrung by a methodological artifact and that measured properly, assessment centers do in fact assess dimensions.
Let's switch to the November issue of the Journal of Applied Social Psychology:
- Engagement is all the rage, having seemingly displaced the age-old concept of job satisfaction (we'll see). This study reminds us that personality plays an important role in predicting engagement (so by extension our ability to increase engagement may be bounded).
- Here's another good one and it's related to internal motivations. The authors developed an instrument that helps organizations measure the "perception of the extant motivational climate." What does that mean? As I understand it, it's essentially whether most people are judging their performance against their peers or their own internal standards. It seems the latter may result in better results, such as less burnout.
- On to something more closely tied to assessment: letters of recommendation (LORs). There's surprisingly little research on these, but this study adds to our knowledge by suggesting that gender and racial bias can occur in their review, but requiring a more thorough review of them may reduce this (I don't know how likely this is for the average supervisor).
- Finally, a study looking at the evaluation of job applicants who voluntarily interrupted their college attendance. Unfortunately this does not appear to have been perceived as a good thing, and the researchers found a gender bias such that women with interrupted attendance had the lowest evaluations.
Next, the November issue of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, where the second focal article focus on eradicating employment discrimination. This article looks pretty juicy. I haven't received this one yet in the mail, so I may have more to say after digesting it. There are, as always, several commentaries following the focal article, on topics including background checks, childhood differences, and social networks.
Okay, let's tackle the 800-pound gorilla: the December issue of IJSA:
- Are true scores and construct scores the same? According to this Monte Carlo study, it seems how the scales were constructed makes a difference.
- Can non-native accents impact the evaluation of job applicants? Sure seems that way according to this study. But the effect was mediated by similarity, interpersonal attraction, and understandability.
- Here's a fascinating one. A study of applicants for border rangers in the Norwegian Armed Forces showed that psychological hardiness--particularly commitment--predicted completion of a rigorous physical activity above and beyond physical fitness, nutrition, and sensation seeking.
- Psst....recruiters...make sure when you're selling your organization you stay positive.
- Spatial ability. It's a classic KSA that's been studied for a long time, for various reasons including its tie to military assessments and the finding that measures can result in sex differences. But not so fast, spatial ability is not a unitary concept.
- Another study of assessment centers, this time in Russia and using a consensus scoring model.
- And let's round it out with one that should rock some worlds: the authors presents results that suggest that subject matter expert judgment of ability/competency importance bore little relation to test validity! Okay, I'm really curious about what the authors say about the implications, so if anyone reads this one, let us know!
Last but not least, the November issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology:
- Another on personality testing, this one underlining the important distinction between broad and narrow traits. This is another article I'm very curious about.
- Here's on one leadership: specifically, on the impact of different power distance values between leader and subordinates on team effectiveness
- And another on nonnative speakers! This one found discriminatory judgments made against nonnative speakers applying for middle management positions as well as venture funding. Interestingly, it appears to be fully mediated by perceptions of political skill--a topic that is hot right now.
- Okay, let's leave on a big note. This meta-analysis found an improvement in performance prediction of 50% when a mechanical combination of assessment data was used rather than a holistic (judgment-based) method. BOOM! Think about that the next time a hiring supervisor derides your spreadsheet.
Until next time!
First, the November issue of JOB:
- Do transformational leaders increase creative performance and the display of OCBs? Well, that may depend on how much trait affectivity they had to begin with. A reminder to not make blanket statements like "X type of leadership causes Y type of behavior."
- There is seemingly endless debate about the utility of personality inventories. This study reminds us--again--that in assessment research there are few simple answers. The authors describe how a particular combination of personality measures correlated with task performance among professional employees, but not non-professionals. (yes, I said task performance)
Next, the Winter issue of Personnel Psychology (free right now!), much of which is devoted to corporate social responsibility (CSR):
- Do perceptions of CSR drive job pursuit intentions? It may depend on the applicant's previous justice experiences and their moral identity.
- Oh, and it may also depend on the extent to which applicants desire to have an impact through their work.
- There is a debate in the assessment center literature about whether competency dimensions are being measured or if it's purely a function of the assessment type. This study suggests that previous research has been hamstrung by a methodological artifact and that measured properly, assessment centers do in fact assess dimensions.
Let's switch to the November issue of the Journal of Applied Social Psychology:
- Engagement is all the rage, having seemingly displaced the age-old concept of job satisfaction (we'll see). This study reminds us that personality plays an important role in predicting engagement (so by extension our ability to increase engagement may be bounded).
- Here's another good one and it's related to internal motivations. The authors developed an instrument that helps organizations measure the "perception of the extant motivational climate." What does that mean? As I understand it, it's essentially whether most people are judging their performance against their peers or their own internal standards. It seems the latter may result in better results, such as less burnout.
- On to something more closely tied to assessment: letters of recommendation (LORs). There's surprisingly little research on these, but this study adds to our knowledge by suggesting that gender and racial bias can occur in their review, but requiring a more thorough review of them may reduce this (I don't know how likely this is for the average supervisor).
- Finally, a study looking at the evaluation of job applicants who voluntarily interrupted their college attendance. Unfortunately this does not appear to have been perceived as a good thing, and the researchers found a gender bias such that women with interrupted attendance had the lowest evaluations.
Next, the November issue of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, where the second focal article focus on eradicating employment discrimination. This article looks pretty juicy. I haven't received this one yet in the mail, so I may have more to say after digesting it. There are, as always, several commentaries following the focal article, on topics including background checks, childhood differences, and social networks.
Okay, let's tackle the 800-pound gorilla: the December issue of IJSA:
- Are true scores and construct scores the same? According to this Monte Carlo study, it seems how the scales were constructed makes a difference.
- Can non-native accents impact the evaluation of job applicants? Sure seems that way according to this study. But the effect was mediated by similarity, interpersonal attraction, and understandability.
- Here's a fascinating one. A study of applicants for border rangers in the Norwegian Armed Forces showed that psychological hardiness--particularly commitment--predicted completion of a rigorous physical activity above and beyond physical fitness, nutrition, and sensation seeking.
- Psst....recruiters...make sure when you're selling your organization you stay positive.
- Spatial ability. It's a classic KSA that's been studied for a long time, for various reasons including its tie to military assessments and the finding that measures can result in sex differences. But not so fast, spatial ability is not a unitary concept.
- Another study of assessment centers, this time in Russia and using a consensus scoring model.
- And let's round it out with one that should rock some worlds: the authors presents results that suggest that subject matter expert judgment of ability/competency importance bore little relation to test validity! Okay, I'm really curious about what the authors say about the implications, so if anyone reads this one, let us know!
Last but not least, the November issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology:
- Another on personality testing, this one underlining the important distinction between broad and narrow traits. This is another article I'm very curious about.
- Here's on one leadership: specifically, on the impact of different power distance values between leader and subordinates on team effectiveness
- And another on nonnative speakers! This one found discriminatory judgments made against nonnative speakers applying for middle management positions as well as venture funding. Interestingly, it appears to be fully mediated by perceptions of political skill--a topic that is hot right now.
- Okay, let's leave on a big note. This meta-analysis found an improvement in performance prediction of 50% when a mechanical combination of assessment data was used rather than a holistic (judgment-based) method. BOOM! Think about that the next time a hiring supervisor derides your spreadsheet.
Until next time!
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Another (smaller) research update
Seems like this always happens, I post a research update and then Personnel Psychology comes out with their latest issue.
Oh well! At least you won't have to read as much this time And while we're at it, let's take a look at the latest Journal of Applied Social Psychology. But first, Personnel Psych:
- The relationship between task performance and citizenship behavior: more complicated than you might think
- Propensity scoring: a statistical technique that may improve our ability to make causal inferences from quasi-experimental designs
- Can creative employees drive higher organizational performance? Well that seems to depend on how open to risk your organization is...
- It's easier said than done, but those looking for a job should try to stay positive: it influences how quickly you're likely to land your next position
- Last but not least, a small correction to a study posted earlier on the advantage of contextualizing personality inventory items
Okay, on to June 2013 JASP, which is a special issue on prejudice:
-Trying to reduce bias in your selection process? Make sure your raters get enough sleep.
- Discrimination against people based on their weight: it starts early! (there's another study on weight discrimination that looked at its impact on perceived social status)
- Discrimination against men perceived to be Muslim increased among Western observers when subjects were presented in traditional dress.
- Those of Black/White biracial descent were less likely to be perceived as minorities and thus less appropriate receipts of affirmative action
- Okay, I like this one in particular, and it happens to be the last one I'll describe. Researchers showed that competency perceptions of an African-American man hired varied depending on whether it was under "affirmative action" or a "diversity initiative"--the latter resulting in higher ratings. This was particularly true for conservative, White raters. Just goes to show how important words are, as any political consultant will tell you.
Fin.
Oh well! At least you won't have to read as much this time And while we're at it, let's take a look at the latest Journal of Applied Social Psychology. But first, Personnel Psych:
- The relationship between task performance and citizenship behavior: more complicated than you might think
- Propensity scoring: a statistical technique that may improve our ability to make causal inferences from quasi-experimental designs
- Can creative employees drive higher organizational performance? Well that seems to depend on how open to risk your organization is...
- It's easier said than done, but those looking for a job should try to stay positive: it influences how quickly you're likely to land your next position
- Last but not least, a small correction to a study posted earlier on the advantage of contextualizing personality inventory items
Okay, on to June 2013 JASP, which is a special issue on prejudice:
-Trying to reduce bias in your selection process? Make sure your raters get enough sleep.
- Discrimination against people based on their weight: it starts early! (there's another study on weight discrimination that looked at its impact on perceived social status)
- Discrimination against men perceived to be Muslim increased among Western observers when subjects were presented in traditional dress.
- Those of Black/White biracial descent were less likely to be perceived as minorities and thus less appropriate receipts of affirmative action
- Okay, I like this one in particular, and it happens to be the last one I'll describe. Researchers showed that competency perceptions of an African-American man hired varied depending on whether it was under "affirmative action" or a "diversity initiative"--the latter resulting in higher ratings. This was particularly true for conservative, White raters. Just goes to show how important words are, as any political consultant will tell you.
Fin.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Credit scores: Useful for selection, but not for the reason you think
Many employers use credit scores as part of their hiring process, despite the lack of evidence regarding their usefulness, the unpopularity of this practice with applicants, and the fact that the EEOC is not a fan.
Adding to our understanding of the issue, in the March 2012 issue of Journal of Applied Psychology (which I will review fully in my March research update), Jeremy Bernerth and his colleagues describe the results of their study where they found:
1) A significant positive relationship between credit scores and task performance
2) A significant positive relationship between credit scores and OCBs
most likely due to
3) Credit scores being positively related to conscientiousness
because there was
4) No significant relationship between credit scores and workplace deviance, such as theft
Interestingly, credit scores were negatively correlated with agreeableness, which the authors say suggests that more agreeable people are more likely to do things like co-sign on questionable loans.
So the bottom line is credit scores may be valuable because they link to performance ratings and OCBs (likely through personality), not because they predict things like theft.
Which leaves the obvious question: why not just use a personality inventory, which is designed to measure conscientiousness and has little adverse impact (unlike credit scores)?
Adding to our understanding of the issue, in the March 2012 issue of Journal of Applied Psychology (which I will review fully in my March research update), Jeremy Bernerth and his colleagues describe the results of their study where they found:
1) A significant positive relationship between credit scores and task performance
2) A significant positive relationship between credit scores and OCBs
most likely due to
3) Credit scores being positively related to conscientiousness
because there was
4) No significant relationship between credit scores and workplace deviance, such as theft
Interestingly, credit scores were negatively correlated with agreeableness, which the authors say suggests that more agreeable people are more likely to do things like co-sign on questionable loans.
So the bottom line is credit scores may be valuable because they link to performance ratings and OCBs (likely through personality), not because they predict things like theft.
Which leaves the obvious question: why not just use a personality inventory, which is designed to measure conscientiousness and has little adverse impact (unlike credit scores)?
Sunday, February 26, 2012
February 2012 research update: Facebook; hope; 3-option items; cognitive ability and racism
So this month the big buzz is over a research article in JASP on using Facebook profiles to judge personality and predict job performance. So let's tackle that one first:
Kluemper, et al. had three trained university students judge Big Five personality factors (using the IPIP) based on over 200 public Facebook profiles of other students. A much smaller sample (56) was used to determine links between evaluator judgments and job performance as rated by supervisors.
So what did they find? Well, among other things:
(1) inter-rater reliability ranged from .48 to .72 which seems low to me but apparently is typical for other-ratings of personality;
(2) two of the other-ratings (emotional stability and agreeableness) significantly correlated with supervisory ratings (around .30), as did one of the self-ratings (extraversion), suggesting to me the two methods might vary in constructs being measured;
(3) the same two other-ratings added incremental validity beyond self-ratings, whereas the opposite was not true.
To their credit, the authors caution readers (those that actually go beyond the mainstream press articles) about using their results to support hiring decisions based on Facebook. In fact, I'd like to quote them:
"Our findings should not be used by organizations as unbridled support for using SNWs [Social Networking Websites] in employment selection. Without more evidence of criterion-related validity and comparability with established employment selection methods, the use of SNW information for hiring purposes is tenuous. In addition to the potential for employment discrimination, there are privacy rights and ethical issues associated with accessing personal information. Clearly, research investigations of such issues lag current informal HR practices."
So bravo to them for researching this issue, and double-bravo (that's a technical term) for cautioning those with Facebook fever.
Let's move to other research out there...
The March issue of IJSA is chalk-full of great research, so let's take a look:
- Much hay is made over the "type" of validity exhibited by cognitive ability tests (don't get me started). To the extent this distinction makes sense to you, you might enjoy Frank Schmidt's argument that ability tests in certain instances can demonstrate content validity. The article is followed by several commentaries and a response.
- Next up is O'Neill, et al. with a critical review of Stevens and Campion's Teamwork-Knowledge, Skills, and Ability Test.
- Reeder, et al. investigate individual differences as they relate to the perception of cognitive ability tests.
- Now here's somethin': Edwards, et al. argue that the three-option multiple choice item is underutilized. This should be read by everyone who has nightmares about writing distractors.
- Hoffman and Meade argue that score differences across assessment center exercises reflect true differences rather than measurement artifact.
- Got hope? Zysberg shows that, through problem-solving-oriented coping, hope is related to success in a selection process.
We already know that people generally aren't very good at accurately describing their skills and abilities, but in the March Psychological Bulletin, Freund and Kasten provide an illuminating meta-analysis indicating that while the relationship between self-estimated and psychometrically measured cognitive ability is modest (.33), it varies depending upon scales and dimensions.
For anyone measuring contextual performance, consider the relationship between role expectations and OCBs as described by Dierdorff, et al.
Speaking of OCBs, Nielsen et al.'s study suggests when measuring OCB expression in a group setting, consider the level of task interdependence.
On the other hand, if you are interested in job performance ratings, be aware that there may be gender bias, and it differs in direction between performance ratings and promotability ratings (with the latter favoring males), according to a recent meta-analysis by Roth, et al.
Last but definitely not least, research by Hodson and Busseri suggest that individuals lower in cognitive ability may be predisposed to exhibit more racism. This suggests that using ability tests may not only increase the validity of your selection process but lower your chances of discriminatory behavior.
****
On a side/editorial note, I find it fascinating and somewhat frustrating that the research energy still seems to be about teasing out major constructs such as cognitive ability and personality. As a practitioner, I gotta tell ya I'm happy when hiring supervisors use any sort of structured assessment beyond their standard interview. I'd love to see more energy behind increasing the validity of the entire selection process. I doubt I'm the only one that feels that way.
Kluemper, et al. had three trained university students judge Big Five personality factors (using the IPIP) based on over 200 public Facebook profiles of other students. A much smaller sample (56) was used to determine links between evaluator judgments and job performance as rated by supervisors.
So what did they find? Well, among other things:
(1) inter-rater reliability ranged from .48 to .72 which seems low to me but apparently is typical for other-ratings of personality;
(2) two of the other-ratings (emotional stability and agreeableness) significantly correlated with supervisory ratings (around .30), as did one of the self-ratings (extraversion), suggesting to me the two methods might vary in constructs being measured;
(3) the same two other-ratings added incremental validity beyond self-ratings, whereas the opposite was not true.
To their credit, the authors caution readers (those that actually go beyond the mainstream press articles) about using their results to support hiring decisions based on Facebook. In fact, I'd like to quote them:
"Our findings should not be used by organizations as unbridled support for using SNWs [Social Networking Websites] in employment selection. Without more evidence of criterion-related validity and comparability with established employment selection methods, the use of SNW information for hiring purposes is tenuous. In addition to the potential for employment discrimination, there are privacy rights and ethical issues associated with accessing personal information. Clearly, research investigations of such issues lag current informal HR practices."
So bravo to them for researching this issue, and double-bravo (that's a technical term) for cautioning those with Facebook fever.
Let's move to other research out there...
The March issue of IJSA is chalk-full of great research, so let's take a look:
- Much hay is made over the "type" of validity exhibited by cognitive ability tests (don't get me started). To the extent this distinction makes sense to you, you might enjoy Frank Schmidt's argument that ability tests in certain instances can demonstrate content validity. The article is followed by several commentaries and a response.
- Next up is O'Neill, et al. with a critical review of Stevens and Campion's Teamwork-Knowledge, Skills, and Ability Test.
- Reeder, et al. investigate individual differences as they relate to the perception of cognitive ability tests.
- Now here's somethin': Edwards, et al. argue that the three-option multiple choice item is underutilized. This should be read by everyone who has nightmares about writing distractors.
- Hoffman and Meade argue that score differences across assessment center exercises reflect true differences rather than measurement artifact.
- Got hope? Zysberg shows that, through problem-solving-oriented coping, hope is related to success in a selection process.
We already know that people generally aren't very good at accurately describing their skills and abilities, but in the March Psychological Bulletin, Freund and Kasten provide an illuminating meta-analysis indicating that while the relationship between self-estimated and psychometrically measured cognitive ability is modest (.33), it varies depending upon scales and dimensions.
For anyone measuring contextual performance, consider the relationship between role expectations and OCBs as described by Dierdorff, et al.
Speaking of OCBs, Nielsen et al.'s study suggests when measuring OCB expression in a group setting, consider the level of task interdependence.
On the other hand, if you are interested in job performance ratings, be aware that there may be gender bias, and it differs in direction between performance ratings and promotability ratings (with the latter favoring males), according to a recent meta-analysis by Roth, et al.
Last but definitely not least, research by Hodson and Busseri suggest that individuals lower in cognitive ability may be predisposed to exhibit more racism. This suggests that using ability tests may not only increase the validity of your selection process but lower your chances of discriminatory behavior.
****
On a side/editorial note, I find it fascinating and somewhat frustrating that the research energy still seems to be about teasing out major constructs such as cognitive ability and personality. As a practitioner, I gotta tell ya I'm happy when hiring supervisors use any sort of structured assessment beyond their standard interview. I'd love to see more energy behind increasing the validity of the entire selection process. I doubt I'm the only one that feels that way.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
July Research Update
Okay, it's past time for a research update. Let's see what's going on out there:
- Looking to get a better salary offer? Research by Thorsteinson suggests that you shouldn't be afraid to aim high...
- Trying to hire for creativity? You'll be interested in Madjar et al.'s research that indicated that depending on the type of creativity you're after (i.e., radical or incremental) both personal and environmental factors play a role. For example, if you're after radical creativity, look for a willingness to take risks and career commitment.
- You stats guys and gals out there will want to check out Johnson et al.'s study that investigated common method variance (CMV). Specifically, they found that by applying different types of remedies for CMV, they altered the relationship between two variables (core self-evaluation and job satisfaction). Something to consider when investigating criterion-related validity.
- Speaking of core self-evaluation, Chen disputes the inclusion of several factors in the concept, and argues that problems exist with its convergent and discriminant validity.
- Observer ratings of personality are hot. And Oh, Wang, and Mount get into the action with their study that found (as other have) that observer ratings yield higher predictive validities than self-reports. Now if we only had an easily-accessible database of observer ratings...
- Do hiring managers really discriminate against obese individuals? Yep, as Agerstrom and Rooth show. Specifically, scores on the implicit association test predicted whether hiring managers were likely to invite obese applicants for an interview.
- Looking to increase the number of staff that exhibit organizational citizenship behaviors? (ya know, things like helping out a co-worker when they don't have to) You might look first to the supervisor, as Yaffe and Kark demonstrate.
- A recent study that found that more women on a team increased group performance garnered some press, but the real story was the predictive role played by social competence (which women happened to score higher on). The authors pondered whether social competence could be trained, thus increasing group performance. Well, a new study by Kotsou et al. seems to suggest just that, showing that a group-format intervention increased emotional competence in adults (it also resulted in lower cortisol secretion and better subjective and physical well-being).
- Speaking of trying to maximize team performance, a study by Humphrey et al. found that both short- and long-term team performance was highest when variance in conscientiousness scores was lowest but variance in extroversion was highest. What does this mean? It suggests that people perform best when around others with similar levels of conscientiousness but perform better when working with people that vary in their levels of extroversion. Fascinating, and something to consider when hiring for or building teams.
- And speaking (again) of emotional competence, Seal et al. describe the development of a new measure of social and emotional development.
- Finally there is Hee et al. with an important study of prejudice. Specifically, the authors found that prejudice against out-group members increases with in-group size and perceptions of homogeneity among both the in-group and out-group. In addition to validating the importance of intergroup contact, this research suggests prejudice may be reduced when dealing with small groups and increasing an understanding of the differences within each group. Makes a lot of sense.
Last but not least, for you IPAC members don't forget that presentations from the just-concluded conference (which I heard was a rousing success) are starting to be posted in the members-only portion of the website. Good stuff!
- Looking to get a better salary offer? Research by Thorsteinson suggests that you shouldn't be afraid to aim high...
- Trying to hire for creativity? You'll be interested in Madjar et al.'s research that indicated that depending on the type of creativity you're after (i.e., radical or incremental) both personal and environmental factors play a role. For example, if you're after radical creativity, look for a willingness to take risks and career commitment.
- You stats guys and gals out there will want to check out Johnson et al.'s study that investigated common method variance (CMV). Specifically, they found that by applying different types of remedies for CMV, they altered the relationship between two variables (core self-evaluation and job satisfaction). Something to consider when investigating criterion-related validity.
- Speaking of core self-evaluation, Chen disputes the inclusion of several factors in the concept, and argues that problems exist with its convergent and discriminant validity.
- Observer ratings of personality are hot. And Oh, Wang, and Mount get into the action with their study that found (as other have) that observer ratings yield higher predictive validities than self-reports. Now if we only had an easily-accessible database of observer ratings...
- Do hiring managers really discriminate against obese individuals? Yep, as Agerstrom and Rooth show. Specifically, scores on the implicit association test predicted whether hiring managers were likely to invite obese applicants for an interview.
- Looking to increase the number of staff that exhibit organizational citizenship behaviors? (ya know, things like helping out a co-worker when they don't have to) You might look first to the supervisor, as Yaffe and Kark demonstrate.
- A recent study that found that more women on a team increased group performance garnered some press, but the real story was the predictive role played by social competence (which women happened to score higher on). The authors pondered whether social competence could be trained, thus increasing group performance. Well, a new study by Kotsou et al. seems to suggest just that, showing that a group-format intervention increased emotional competence in adults (it also resulted in lower cortisol secretion and better subjective and physical well-being).
- Speaking of trying to maximize team performance, a study by Humphrey et al. found that both short- and long-term team performance was highest when variance in conscientiousness scores was lowest but variance in extroversion was highest. What does this mean? It suggests that people perform best when around others with similar levels of conscientiousness but perform better when working with people that vary in their levels of extroversion. Fascinating, and something to consider when hiring for or building teams.
- And speaking (again) of emotional competence, Seal et al. describe the development of a new measure of social and emotional development.
- Finally there is Hee et al. with an important study of prejudice. Specifically, the authors found that prejudice against out-group members increases with in-group size and perceptions of homogeneity among both the in-group and out-group. In addition to validating the importance of intergroup contact, this research suggests prejudice may be reduced when dealing with small groups and increasing an understanding of the differences within each group. Makes a lot of sense.
Last but not least, for you IPAC members don't forget that presentations from the just-concluded conference (which I heard was a rousing success) are starting to be posted in the members-only portion of the website. Good stuff!
Thursday, April 07, 2011
A little of this, a little of that
I've got a hodgepodge of things for you this time, some research mixed with some other interesting things.
First, the March issue of Journal of Applied Psychology, which has been out for a while and I've been a little slow to get to:
- Becker and Cropanzano on the (non-linear) relationship between job performance and voluntary turnover (people tend to skedaddle when they're on a performance skid).
- Podsakoff, et al. with a fascinating study of the impact of OCBs on interviewee ratings. Turns out they made quite an impact, particularly for the higher-level position, and particularly when candidates demonstrated low levels of OCB (e.g., helping, loyalty). Raters were probably surprised that a situation that so clearly calls for impression management failed to elicit it.
- McDaniel, et al. with a great piece on SJTs. The authors describe two adjustments that can be made to traditional SJTs that improve validity, reduce Black-White mean differences and score elevation due to coaching, and reduce total length. That all sounds pretty good to me, and you can read an in press version here.
- Last but not least, Swider, et al. report the results of a study on job search effort and voluntary turnover. Job embededness appears to play an important rule, as does job satisfaction and the availability of alternatives.
Speaking of McDaniel, he and his colleagues have written an article for an upcoming issue of Industrial and Organizational Psychology with the provocative title of "The Uniform Guidelines are a detriment to the field of personnel selection." SIOP members should be sure to consider submitting a commentary, and even if you're not a member, you should check out the in press version; it's a good read.
Speaking of adverse impact...I attended a fascinating webinar sponsored by PTC/MC on Wednesday where Kenneth Yusko of Marymount University described the development of the Siena Reasoning Test, which uses a slightly different question type (along with some other techniques) to reduce d but maintain criterion-related validity. Provocative stuff, and one of the the holy grails of personnel assessment. Which probably explains why Yusko and his colleagues are being presented with the 2011 M. Scott Myers award at this year's SIOP conference. Interested? Check it out yourself. You can also flip through slides from a similar presentation at the 2008 IPAC conference.
Speaking of IPAC, have you registered for the July conference in D.C.? It's shaping up to be another great one--just check out some of the pre-conference workshops.
Finally, if you're up for a little heated discussion, head on over to ERE, where Wendell Williams laments about the increasing number of people who claim to be "experts" in assessment but who lack the chops. He particularly calls out poorly informed bloggers. Hey...wait a minute...
First, the March issue of Journal of Applied Psychology, which has been out for a while and I've been a little slow to get to:
- Becker and Cropanzano on the (non-linear) relationship between job performance and voluntary turnover (people tend to skedaddle when they're on a performance skid).
- Podsakoff, et al. with a fascinating study of the impact of OCBs on interviewee ratings. Turns out they made quite an impact, particularly for the higher-level position, and particularly when candidates demonstrated low levels of OCB (e.g., helping, loyalty). Raters were probably surprised that a situation that so clearly calls for impression management failed to elicit it.
- McDaniel, et al. with a great piece on SJTs. The authors describe two adjustments that can be made to traditional SJTs that improve validity, reduce Black-White mean differences and score elevation due to coaching, and reduce total length. That all sounds pretty good to me, and you can read an in press version here.
- Last but not least, Swider, et al. report the results of a study on job search effort and voluntary turnover. Job embededness appears to play an important rule, as does job satisfaction and the availability of alternatives.
Speaking of McDaniel, he and his colleagues have written an article for an upcoming issue of Industrial and Organizational Psychology with the provocative title of "The Uniform Guidelines are a detriment to the field of personnel selection." SIOP members should be sure to consider submitting a commentary, and even if you're not a member, you should check out the in press version; it's a good read.
Speaking of adverse impact...I attended a fascinating webinar sponsored by PTC/MC on Wednesday where Kenneth Yusko of Marymount University described the development of the Siena Reasoning Test, which uses a slightly different question type (along with some other techniques) to reduce d but maintain criterion-related validity. Provocative stuff, and one of the the holy grails of personnel assessment. Which probably explains why Yusko and his colleagues are being presented with the 2011 M. Scott Myers award at this year's SIOP conference. Interested? Check it out yourself. You can also flip through slides from a similar presentation at the 2008 IPAC conference.
Speaking of IPAC, have you registered for the July conference in D.C.? It's shaping up to be another great one--just check out some of the pre-conference workshops.
Finally, if you're up for a little heated discussion, head on over to ERE, where Wendell Williams laments about the increasing number of people who claim to be "experts" in assessment but who lack the chops. He particularly calls out poorly informed bloggers. Hey...wait a minute...
Friday, July 16, 2010
July 2010 J.A.P.
A new round of journals is out, so let's start with the June issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology.
First up, Schleicher et al. looked at whether there were demographic differences in how much candidate scores improved upon retesting. Turns out there were several. Whites showed larger improvements than Blacks or Hispanics on several assessments, particularly on written tests. Women and applicants under 40 showed greater improvements than men and applicants 40+. Implications? In some situations allowing applicants to retest may exacerbate adverse impact.
Next, an important piece by Aguinis et al. (that you can read here) about test bias. This follows on the heels of the June IOP articles on the same topic and seems to represent a resurgence of interest in a topic that seemed dormant. In this article the authors report the results of a very large Monte Carlo simulation (billions and billions of data points) where they found that if bias is measured using slope-based techniques, it's likely to go undetected, and intercept-based bias favoring minority group members is likely to be found when in fact it does not exist. This study, combined with points made in the IOP article suggest that some of the "established" conclusions regarding test bias may not be as solid as we thought.
Third, for those of you interested in differential functioning (of items or scales), you should check out the piece by Adam Meade where he presents a taxonomy of potential differential functioning effect sizes and also describes a software program created for computing the indices and graphing differential functioning.
Next, a piece by Wang et al. on locus of control. Importantly, they found that when locus of control (LOC) is specific to work-related issues, there are stronger correlations between LOC and work-related criteria such as job satisfaction and commitment. Similarly, when LOC is defined more broadly to include non-work issues, there are some stronger correlations with non-work criteria such as life satisfaction. Implications? Much like research on personality items, specifying a work-related context would seem to increase the predictive power of LOC measures.
Last but not least, an important article on counterproductive work behavior (CWB) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) by Spector, et al. CWB and OCB seem like they should be opposites of each other--one demonstrated by disengaged, unhappy workers, the other by engaged, happy ones--right? Not so fast. The authors report the results of an experiment that suggest that the concepts are unrelated and do not necessarily have opposite relationships with other variables. The authors also recommend that when measuring these behaviors, frequency of performance be used rather than level of agreement.
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
May '10 J.A.P.
Summer journal madness continues with the May issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology. It's a diverse issue, check it out:
- Taras et al. conducted a very large meta-analysis of the association between Hofstede's cultural value dimensions (e.g., power distance, masculinity, individualism) and a wide variety of individual outcomes. One interesting finding is the stronger relationship between these values and emotions (organizational commitment, OCBs, etc.) compared to job performance.
- Are high performers more likely to stay or leave? In a study of over 12,000 employees in the insurance industry over a 3-year period, Nyberg found the answer was: it depends. Specifically, it depends on the labor market and pay growth.
- Think g (cognitive ability) is just related to job performance? In a (albeit small) study by Judge, et al., it turns out it was also related to physical and economic well-being. Maybe their next study will address my personal hypothesis: g is related to choice of car.
- A study by Lievens, et al. (in press version here) found with a sample of 192 incumbents from 64 occupations that 25% of the variance in competency ratings (like you might find in a job analysis) was due to the nature of the rater's job, such as level of complexity. Not surprisingly, the greatest consensus was reached for jobs that involved a lot of equipment or contact with the public.
- Self-efficacy (i.e.., confidence) has been proposed as an important predictor of job performance. In a study by Schmidt & DeShon, the authors found that this relationship depends on the ambiguity present in the situation--in situations high in ambiguity, self-efficacy was negatively related to job performance; in situations low in ambiguity, the opposite was true.
- Finally, for anyone citing Ilies, et al.'s 2009 study of the relationship between personality and OCB, there have been a couple corrections.
- Taras et al. conducted a very large meta-analysis of the association between Hofstede's cultural value dimensions (e.g., power distance, masculinity, individualism) and a wide variety of individual outcomes. One interesting finding is the stronger relationship between these values and emotions (organizational commitment, OCBs, etc.) compared to job performance.
- Are high performers more likely to stay or leave? In a study of over 12,000 employees in the insurance industry over a 3-year period, Nyberg found the answer was: it depends. Specifically, it depends on the labor market and pay growth.
- Think g (cognitive ability) is just related to job performance? In a (albeit small) study by Judge, et al., it turns out it was also related to physical and economic well-being. Maybe their next study will address my personal hypothesis: g is related to choice of car.
- A study by Lievens, et al. (in press version here) found with a sample of 192 incumbents from 64 occupations that 25% of the variance in competency ratings (like you might find in a job analysis) was due to the nature of the rater's job, such as level of complexity. Not surprisingly, the greatest consensus was reached for jobs that involved a lot of equipment or contact with the public.
- Self-efficacy (i.e.., confidence) has been proposed as an important predictor of job performance. In a study by Schmidt & DeShon, the authors found that this relationship depends on the ambiguity present in the situation--in situations high in ambiguity, self-efficacy was negatively related to job performance; in situations low in ambiguity, the opposite was true.
- Finally, for anyone citing Ilies, et al.'s 2009 study of the relationship between personality and OCB, there have been a couple corrections.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)