The Supreme Court ruling could alter employment practices nationwide and make it harder to prove discrimination when there is no evidence it was intentional.
Click here for a news report on the ruling.
Read more!
Firefighters win the Ricci v. DeStefano case
Research Update
This update summarizes and provides links for the following research of interest:
- Using Integrity Tests for Employee Selection
- Does Emotional Reasoning aid Job Performance?
- What attracts Employees to Organizations?
Using Integrity Tests for Employee Selection
Integrity tests, as a part of a selection battery, have been shown to provide the greatest incremental validity over and above tests of general mental ability (Schmidt and Hunter, 1998). Building on this research, Casillas, Robbins, McKinniss, Postlewaite and Oh (2009) tested 680 job incumbents across nine organizations of different sizes spanning diverse industries to develop and validate an integrity measure called the WorkKeys Performance Assessment (WPA). This participant sample was randomly split into a development sample, which was used to select the items to be included on the test and a cross- validation sample, to identify the properties of the measure. An item pool was generated using current I/O Psychology literature, subject matter expert ratings, and readability ratings from a sample of 50 blue-collar employees. The resulting pool of 216 items was set to a 6-point Likert scale and divided into two sub-scales, GWA measuring an individual’s overall approach to their work and environment and RR, a measure of an individual’s attitude towards compliance with safety guidelines and procedures as well as accident prevention in the workplace. The measure contained both overt and covert items. Analysis of data collected from the development sample resulted in a total of 26 GWA (α=.81) and 23 RR (α=.83) items. Scores on the GWA and RR scales were correlated with both self and supervisor ratings of performance. Moreover, including RR in the analysis increased incremental validity and ability to predict safety and counter-productive work behaviours by 27.8% and 20.1% respectively. It was also observed that a composite of conscientiousness, agreeableness and emotional stability from the Big 5 was highly correlated with the WPA (range=.52-.59). Consistent with the literature, fairly low correlations were observed between demographic variables and test scores. Hence, these pre-employment tests could function as a cost-effective device to identify potentially reliable and dependable employees who may be successful on the job.
Does Emotional Reasoning aid Job Performance?
This 2-study investigation by Blickle, Momm, Kramer, Mierke, Liu and Ferris (2009) evaluated the construct and criterion related validity of a new measure of emotional reasoning called the ‘Test of Emotional Intelligence (TEMINT). This test uses a specific-ability approach to assess an important component of emotional intelligence which involves reasoning with emotions or “the ability to employ emotional knowledge to understand and analyze emotions” (Blickle et al., 2009). The measure was developed such that lower scores on the TEMINT indicate higher emotional reasoning skills. This measure was administered to 210 German employees in conjunction with another extensively validated measure of emotion perception ability called ‘DANVA’. These participants were also peer-rated by 210 assessors. Consistent with expectations, the TEMINT was significantly related to job function and job type but not age and gender. Results from Study 1 indicated that TEMINT scores were positively correlated with scores from the DANVA (r=.26, p<.05). Consistent with predictions, TEMINT scores were negatively correlated to self ratings of empathy(r=-.26, p<.05) as well as openness to experience(r=-.21, p<.05). As well, TEMINT scores were negatively correlated with all three social functioning variables including social astuteness, interpersonal influence and apparent sincerity and explained a significant proportion of the variance in these even after controlling for personality and job type but appeared to be uncorrelated with general mental ability (GMA). Study 2 revealed that the assessments of job performance by supervisors, peers and others were significantly correlated (r=-.24) with TEMINT scores. Moreover, emotional reasoning skills measured on the TEMINT explained a significant proportion of job performance even beyond those accounted for by GMA and personality. Hence, TEMINT appears to be a valid measure of emotional reasoning skills which seems to be an important predictor of job performance. Future research is required to examine the relationship of TEMINT with other relevant work outcomes as well as to design emotional competency training to develop employee emotional reasoning skills.
What attracts Employees to Organizations?
A study by Slaughter and Greguras (2009) attempted to determine whether the perceived ‘personality’ of an organization (defined as the set of human personality characteristics perceived to be associated with the organization) was a factor influencing an individual’s initial attraction to it. An organization’s “personality” can be developed through a variety of media including television/radio advertisements and other sources of information such as the internet, or from friends and family. Previous research by Slaughter et al (2004) indentified five different types of perceived organizational personality characteristics including Boy Scout (e.g. honest, helpful), Innovativeness (e.g. original), Dominance (e.g. big), Thrift (e.g. low budget) and Style (e.g. trendy). Data was collected at three time periods 2 weeks apart. Participants included 828 undergraduate psychology students at Time 1 who completed the Big 5 personality measure. At Time 2, a total of 777 participants rated a randomly assigned organization on perceptions of organizational personality characteristics and available job opportunities. At Time 3, a total of 752 participants rated organizational attractiveness.
Notable findings included the following:
Full article/abstract available at: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122204891/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Does Emotional Reasoning aid Job Performance?
This 2-study investigation by Blickle, Momm, Kramer, Mierke, Liu and Ferris (2009) evaluated the construct and criterion related validity of a new measure of emotional reasoning called the ‘Test of Emotional Intelligence (TEMINT). This test uses a specific-ability approach to assess an important component of emotional intelligence which involves reasoning with emotions or “the ability to employ emotional knowledge to understand and analyze emotions” (Blickle et al., 2009). The measure was developed such that lower scores on the TEMINT indicate higher emotional reasoning skills. This measure was administered to 210 German employees in conjunction with another extensively validated measure of emotion perception ability called ‘DANVA’. These participants were also peer-rated by 210 assessors. Consistent with expectations, the TEMINT was significantly related to job function and job type but not age and gender. Results from Study 1 indicated that TEMINT scores were positively correlated with scores from the DANVA (r=.26, p<.05). Consistent with predictions, TEMINT scores were negatively correlated to self ratings of empathy(r=-.26, p<.05) as well as openness to experience(r=-.21, p<.05). As well, TEMINT scores were negatively correlated with all three social functioning variables including social astuteness, interpersonal influence and apparent sincerity and explained a significant proportion of the variance in these even after controlling for personality and job type but appeared to be uncorrelated with general mental ability (GMA). Study 2 revealed that the assessments of job performance by supervisors, peers and others were significantly correlated (r=-.24) with TEMINT scores. Moreover, emotional reasoning skills measured on the TEMINT explained a significant proportion of job performance even beyond those accounted for by GMA and personality. Hence, TEMINT appears to be a valid measure of emotional reasoning skills which seems to be an important predictor of job performance. Future research is required to examine the relationship of TEMINT with other relevant work outcomes as well as to design emotional competency training to develop employee emotional reasoning skills.
Full article/abstract available at: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122204894/abstract
What attracts Employees to Organizations?
A study by Slaughter and Greguras (2009) attempted to determine whether the perceived ‘personality’ of an organization (defined as the set of human personality characteristics perceived to be associated with the organization) was a factor influencing an individual’s initial attraction to it. An organization’s “personality” can be developed through a variety of media including television/radio advertisements and other sources of information such as the internet, or from friends and family. Previous research by Slaughter et al (2004) indentified five different types of perceived organizational personality characteristics including Boy Scout (e.g. honest, helpful), Innovativeness (e.g. original), Dominance (e.g. big), Thrift (e.g. low budget) and Style (e.g. trendy). Data was collected at three time periods 2 weeks apart. Participants included 828 undergraduate psychology students at Time 1 who completed the Big 5 personality measure. At Time 2, a total of 777 participants rated a randomly assigned organization on perceptions of organizational personality characteristics and available job opportunities. At Time 3, a total of 752 participants rated organizational attractiveness.
Notable findings included the following:
- The organization’s “personality” explained a significant proportion of the variance in attraction to the organization but not the likelihood of accepting a job offer.
- There was less attraction to organizations that appeared thrifty. As a result, the authors recommended that companies emphasize other qualities (e.g., portray an image of being more innovative, helpful and reliable).
- More dominant organizations seem less attractive to applicants.
- Conscientiousness moderated the relationship between attraction to the organization and a number of perceived organizational personality characteristics (Thrift, Innovativeness and Boy Scout) such that more conscientious individuals who are also more ambitious will prefer to not be associated with organizations that have a negative image.
- Results did not reveal a stronger attraction to an organization as a result of a stronger Person-Organization fit but did find a weaker attraction due to a weaker fit, especially in the cases where individuals were high on a personality dimension that the organization was perceived low on.
Full article/abstract available at: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122204898/abstract
Read more!
Research Update
This update summarizes and provides links for the following research of interest:
- Can Faking be Reduced by Using Multiple Predictors?
- Job Engagement and the “Disconnect” Between Scientist & Practitioner
- Evidence for a New Factor of Cognitive Ability
- Should you Hire or Nurture Optimism?
Can Faking be Reduced by Using Multiple Predictors?
Converse, Peterson and Griffith (2009) compared faking on non-cognitive selection measures used in isolation with those administered in conjunction with other selection measures. Simulated selection data including 2000 data points was generated and selected in different combinations of variable scores, on conscientiousness and two other predictors as well as on faking and job performance. The outcomes of criterion-related validity, mean performance and selection decision consistency were then examined. Results indicated that faking did affect the criterion-related validity to a considerable extent and hence remains a practical concern for selection research and practice. In addition, the authors observed that faking affected all other outcomes to a lesser degree when multiple selection measures (either cognitive or non-cognitive) are used together as opposed to when the personality measure was administered in isolation. Based on the findings of their research, the authors suggest that it is advisable to use caution and attempt to reduce faking by adding additional predictors if a narrow trait is being used to predict a specific attribute of performance. Future research in the areas of faking and multiple predictors as well as the faking-performance correlation is also warranted based on its considerable practical relevance.
Full article at: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122204896/abstract
Job Engagement and the “Disconnect” Between Scientist & Practitioner
Wefald and Downey (2009) discuss the obvious discrepancy between organizations and academia in their approach to job engagement. Job engagement is a popular concept with organizations and HR consulting firms. There exist a number of measures, such as the Gallup Q12 approach, which defines job engagement as ‘an individual’s involvement, satisfaction and enthusiasm for work and being connected to others at work’ (Harter, Schmidt and Hayes, 2002). Limited external academic validation of popular engagement measures has been carried out due to their proprietary nature. It is apparent, however, that the industry focus remains on outcomes such as retention and performance. On the other hand, academia considers engagement from a psychological state standpoint, defined as ‘a persistent and affective-motivational state of fulfillment in employees’ (Schaufeli, 2002). There is limited research on the consequences of job engagement as defined by academia and the generalizability of existing research in the area is questionable. Future research comparing or relating the academic concept with the industry approach would go a long way in bridging the gap between these spheres.
Full article at:http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121413732/abstract
Evidence for a New Factor of Cognitive Ability
The single factor ‘g’ (Spearman, 1927) has long been associated with cognitive ability and intelligence. However, recent evidence suggests the existence of another additional factor termed ‘process analytic’ by Zysberg (2009). The first study conducted by Zysberg (2009) included 6010 applicants for professional positions that ranged between 18-56 years of age. The participants underwent a battery of classic intelligence tests including a formal series test, a numeric sequence test, an arithmetic knowledge test, a verbal analogies test and a verbal logical test. They also completed two process analytic tests including flowcharts and process tests which showed high reliability coefficients. Factor analysis indicated the presence of three factors accounting for 93% of the total variance underlying the intelligence construct including a quantitative reasoning factor, a verbal logical test and a third factor including the flowcharts and the process tests termed the ‘process analytic’ factor. This factor is defined as ‘one’s ability to perceive and interpret processes, to be able to represent realities in terms of processes and decision making junctions, and identify and rectify errors and flaws in the processes to make it flow most efficiently’ (Zysberg, 2009). The results of this study were replicated in a second study with 1832 job applicants for technical positions. Again, a stable three factor structure which accounted for 81% of the total variance and included the new ‘process analytic’ factor. However, it may be possible that the emergence of this new factor is the result of the novel mode of testing used to tap the process analytic factor rather than a new facet of intelligence.
Full article at:http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122204890/abstract
Should you Hire or Nurture Optimism?
Kluemper, Little and DeGroot (2009) carried out two studies to test the effects of state and trait optimism on various organizational outcomes such as psychological distress symptoms, burnout, affective commitment, job satisfaction, task performance and contextual performance. Trait optimism refers to a stable internal level of optimism whereas state optimism refers to changes in optimism due to situational factors. Kluemper et al (2009) hypothesized that if trait optimism is more predictive of job outcomes, it could be selected for at the time of recruitment whereas if state optimism is a better predictor, individuals could be trained to increase their levels of optimism, as demonstrated by previous research (Seligman, 1998). The first study was conducted on 772 undergraduate students and the second on 106 employees at a treatment facility. In both studies, state optimism significantly predicted additional variance in all outcomes both after controlling for both trait optimism as well as for affect. As well, confirmatory factor analysis in the first study indicated that state optimism was independent from both trait optimism and affect. However, trait optimism did not significantly add to this variance after controlling for state optimism or affect. Hence, the results from both these studies suggest that to encourage positive job outcomes, managers must create a work environment that encourages optimism to rather than hiring optimistic individuals.
Full article at:http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121669145/abstract
Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)