The Journal of applied psychology
-
Using a sample of U. K. wire makers (N = 282), the authors tested a model in which personality and work environment antecedents affect proactive work behavior via cognitive-motivational mechanisms. ⋯ Proactive personality was significantly associated with proactive work behavior via role breadth self-efficacy and flexible role orientation, job autonomy was also linked to proactive behavior via these processes, as well as directly; and coworker trust was associated with proactive behavior via flexible role orientation. In further support of the model, the cognitive-motivational processes for proactive work behavior differed from those for the more passive outcome of generalized compliance.
-
A field study and an experimental study examined relationships among organizational variables and various responses of victims to perceived wrongdoing. Both studies showed that procedural justice climate moderates the effect of organizational variables on the victim's revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, or avoidance behaviors. In Study 1, a field study, absolute hierarchical status enhanced forgiveness and reconciliation, but only when perceptions of procedural justice climate were high; relative hierarchical status increased revenge, but only when perceptions of procedural justice climate were low. In Study 2, a laboratory experiment, victims were less likely to endorse vengeance or avoidance depending on the type of wrongdoing, but only when perceptions of procedural justice climate were high.
-
The authors present an analytical method to assess the average criterion performance of the selected candidates as well as the adverse impact and the cost of general multistage selection decisions. The method extends previous work on the analytical estimation of multistage selection outcomes to the case in which the applicant pool is a mixture of applicant populations that differ in their average performance on the selection predictors. Next, the method was used to conduct 3 studies of important issues practitioners and researchers have with multistage selection processes. Finally, the authors indicate how the method can be integrated into a broader analytical framework to design multistage selection decisions that achieve intended levels of selection cost, workforce quality, and workforce diversity.
-
The impact of corrections for faking on the validity of noncognitive measures in selection settings.
In selection research and practice, there have been many attempts to correct scores on noncognitive measures for applicants who may have faked their responses somehow. A related approach with more impact would be identifying and removing faking applicants from consideration for employment entirely, replacing them with high-scoring alternatives. The current study demonstrates that under typical conditions found in selection, even this latter approach has minimal impact on mean performance levels. ⋯ Where trait scores were corrected only for suspected faking, and applicants not removed or replaced, the minimal impact the authors found on mean performance was reduced even further. By comparison, the impact of selection ratio and test validity is much larger across a range of realistic levels of selection ratios and validities. If selection researchers are interested only in maximizing predicted performance or validity, the use of faking measures to correct scores or remove applicants from further employment consideration will produce minimal effects.
-
Meta Analysis
A reexamination of black-white mean differences in work performance: more data, more moderators.
This study is the largest meta-analysis to date of Black-White mean differences in work performance. The authors examined several moderators not addressed in previous research. ⋯ Greater mean differences were found for highly cognitively loaded criteria, data reported in unpublished sources, and for performance measures consisting of multiple item scales. On the basis of these findings, the authors hypothesize several potential determinants of mean racial differences in job performance.