Category Archives: *Journal of Applied Psychology
Making personality tests better for selection (IO Psychology)
Topic: Personality, Selection
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (AUTUMN 2012)
Article: A matter of context: A meta-analytic investigation of the relative validity of contextualized and noncontextualized personality measures
Authors: J. A. Shaffer & B. E. Postlethwaite
Reviewed by: Alexandra Rechlin
Whether or not you agree with it, your organization likely uses personality assessments as part of the selection process. Personality assessments do appear to be valid predictors of job performance, but can we do anything to make them be even better predictors? Recent research indicates that the answer is yes.
Jonathan Shaffer and Bennett Postlethwaite conducted a meta-analysis that compared generic (noncontextualized) personality measures with those that were presented in a work context (contextualized). For example, noncontextualized personality measures might include an item such as “I am on good terms with everyone,” whereas a contextualized version might be “I am on good terms with everyone at work.” The authors found that contextualized personality assessments were much better predictors of job performance than were noncontextualized assessments.
Making personality assessments contextualized is incredibly easy; it’s as simple as adding “at work” to the end of each item. This study found that contextualized measures designed for general use were just as good as those designed for use in the workplace, so you can use a publicly available measure and make it contextualized to improve its validity. Finally, one of the best implications of using contextualized measures is that they will be better accepted by applicants, as it’s clearer to the applicant how the personality tests are relevant to the workplace.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
Can’t we just get along? Team personality and conflict (IO Psychology)
Topics: Teams, Personality, Selection
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (SEP 2012)
Article: Ready to rumble: How team personality composition and task conflict interact to
improve performance.
Authors: Bret H. Bradley, Anthony C. Klotz, Bennett E. Postlethwaite, & Kenneth G. Brown
Reviewed By: Aaron Manier
Team members need to get along in order to perform well. Unfortunately, we’re all different people, so sometimes conflict arises. Often this conflict arises around different takes on the team’s task. However, scientific understanding of the relationship between task conflict and effective team performance has been inconclusive.
Personality impacts team dynamics and processes. Specifically, openness to experience and emotional stability can help or hinder team communication and conflict resolution. Team members who are open to experience are generally open-minded and curious, resulting in greater adaptability and a willingness to discuss conflict openly. Members with emotional stability have a steady sense of composure and generally have a positive view of others that allows them to use others effectively in conflict resolution.
Teams with members high in emotional stability and openness to experience perform stronger in the face of task conflict than teams with members low in these personality characteristics. Because of these findings, management should consider personality when building teams for unique tasks. Employees with high levels of emotional stability and openness will be able to tackle non-routine, challenging tasks with more grace and dignity, effectively resolving task conflict as it arises.
Makes sense, right? Who wants to work with a neurotic, closed-minded team member? Unless you’re just into that kind of thing.
Bradley, B. H., Klotz, A. C., Postlethwaite, B. E., & Brown, K. G. (2012). Ready to rumble:
How team personality composition and task conflict interact to improve performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, Advance online publication. Doi: 10.1037/a0029845
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
Predicting Turnover? You Might Want to Measure This (IO Psychology)
Topic: Job Attitudes, Turnover
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology
Article: When and How Is Job Embeddedness Predictive of Turnover?
A Meta-Analytic Investigation
Authors: Jiang, K., Liu, D., McKay, P. F., Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R.
Reviewer: Neil Morelli
Have you ever had a job where you felt like you were stuck? Like if in a perfect world you might leave, but your work obligations, salary, family needs, or community ties didn’t allow you to? If you’ve ever felt this way you’ve demonstrated what researchers call job embeddedness, or the integrated reasons employees become stuck or caught in a job. This idea is important when it comes to understanding turnover.
When it comes to predicting turnover, Jiang and colleagues expected that it’s not just how an employee thinks or feels about his or her job, it’s also the degree of on- and off-the-job embeddedness that an employee experiences.
The researchers visualized turnover like this: depending on the employee’s national culture, type of organization, and gender, on- and off-the-job sources of embeddedness will influence turnover intentions. These turnover intentions, also influenced by job attitudes and possible job alternatives, will then directly and indirectly influence actual turnover.
Did the authors find evidence to support this idea of turnover? After using 65 independent samples in a meta-analysis, the authors found that as job embeddedness increased the intention to turnover decreased. What’s more interesting is that this relationship was observed when job attitudes and alternatives were controlled, indicating that job embeddedness is a unique piece of the pie when it comes to understanding turnover. Jiang et al. also found that on-the-job sources of embeddedness had stronger relationship to turnover intentions in public organizations and when the employees came from a female-dominated sample.
So overall, job embeddness can decrease an employee’s intent to turnover, which often times directly or indirectly lowers their chances of actually turning over. Thus, while being “stuck” might have a negative connotation for employees, organizations might want to consider bolstering employee job embeddedness in positive ways to keep turnover levels low. The authors suggest investing in career development opportunities or helping subsidize home purchases in favorite neighborhoods. Either way, in addition to measuring employee engagement and job satisfaction, surveying levels of job embeddedness could be a useful tool in predicting future levels of employee turnover.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
Relax! You just had vacation! (IO Psychology)
Topic: Stress, Wellness
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (JUL 2012)
Article: Academics’ Experiences of a Respite From Work: Effects of Self-Critical Perfectionism and Perseverative Cognition on Postrespite Well-Being
Authors: Paul E. Flaxman, Julie Menard, Frank W. Bond, and Gail Kinman
Reviewed By: Isaac Sabat
For once, researchers and employees agree—it is absolutely necessary to take a vacation. If employees are not given breaks from work, they experience physical and mental fatigue, which puts them at risk for a variety of other more serious health problems. Vacations offer many important benefits to employees, such as the ability to recharge their batteries and increase their happiness. These effects have also been found to carry over into the subsequent work-weeks following vacations.
However, it has recently been found that not everybody is able to reap these same lingering benefits that vacations have to offer! If you are a self-critical perfectionist (i.e., somebody who sets overly high goals for him/herself and evaluates him/herself in an extremely critical manner), the data suggest that you will not properly enjoy your vacation. While self-critical perfectionists are able to relax and be as happy as non-perfectionists during the vacation period (possibly, because they are not engaged in activities that allow for self-criticism while on vacation), they almost immediately return to their pre-vacation stress-levels after returning to work!
Researchers found that this difference is caused by the tendency that many of these perfectionists share of ruminating about past errors and worrying about future errors. So, what does this mean for the self-critical perfectionists of the world? Well, they certainly shouldn’t worry about worrying too much. Researchers have proposed that the solution lies in mindfulness interventions that teach employees how to identify and reduce their anxiety-producing thoughts and stop repetitively worrying and ruminating about performance based tasks. As always, more research is needed to determine if these interventions could be effective.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
Say Cheese! How Smiling at Work Can Make You Happy (IO Psychology)
Topic: Employee Satisfaction, Personality
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (SEPT 2012)
Article: Why Does Service With a Smile Make Employees Happy? A Social Interaction Model
Authors: E. Kim, D.J. Yoon
Reviewed By: Ben Sher
If your job requires you to interact with customers, it’s probably a good idea to smile. Nobody wants to do business with someone who looks annoyed, irritated, sad, or like they just found out that their hard drive crashed. But did you know that smiling at customers can actually make you happier?
New research by Kim and Yoon (2012) focused on retail employees, their customers, and the interactions shared between them. They found that when employees smile at customers in order to appear friendly, the employees really do end up in a good mood. Why? The researchers say this is based on the social interaction model, which explains that emotions expressed by employees can affect the emotional response of their customers. The emotional response of the customers in-turn affects the mood of the employees.
In this situation, smiling employees cause their customers to smile in return. This could be due to the natural urge to mimic emotional displays of people we are interacting with, or a more intentional effort to respond in a friendly and polite manner. When customers smile, it’s as if they are saying “I like how you are doing your job!” To the employee, this feels like a positive performance review. Wouldn’t that make you happy?
Another interesting point is that the strength of this finding varies depending on the personality of the customers. Customers who had a high degree of agreeableness (which is someone who is interested in harmony and courteousness) were not as likely to smile in response to smiling employees. This may seem counterintuitive, but it is because agreeable people are not as sensitive to environmental cues when deciding how to respond. Customers with a low degree of agreeableness are more sensitive to emotional cues, and so they are more likely to smile in response to smiling employees. Similarly, customers with a low degree of emotional stability were more likely to respond with smiling when confronted with smiling employees.
Why is this study important? In general, it highlights the role that customers play in employee satisfaction. Managers should not underestimate the importance of this dynamic relationship when trying to improve employee mood and morale. More specifically, this study shows the importance of positive emotional displays. Smiling at customers is not just for show, it’s for your own good too.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
Why Should Managers Care about Being Fair? (Human Resource Management)
Topic: Fairness, Organizational Justice, Organizational Performance
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology
Article: Fairness at the collective level: A meta-analytic examination of the
consequences and boundary conditions of organizational justice climate.
Authors: Whitman, D. S., Caleo, S., Carpenter, N. C., Horner, M. T., and Bernerth, J.
B.
Reviewer: Neil Morelli
Organizational justice, or how fairly an organization treats its workers, is a big deal to employees. To an individual employee, organizational justice helps determine his or her attitude about the job and as well as his or her productivity. But this perception doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Because this perception is often shared with co-workers and team members, called justice climate, Whitman and his co-authors conducted a meta-analysis to summarize and clarify how organizational justice climate exists at the team (unit) level and can influence team effectiveness.
Being an ambiguous term in itself, Whitman et al. defined effectiveness as having four main parts: attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction), processes (e.g., citizenship), withdrawal (e.g., turnover), and performance (e.g., profit). They predicted that a more positive justice climate at the team-level means that workers would be able to trust their leaders to a greater extent, which would result in the team achieving more group goals. The authors also predicted that the different parts of organizational justice, distributive (i.e., how fair rewards are to input), procedural (i.e., how fair company policies are), and interactional (i.e., how fair workers are treated interpersonally by their managers), would be related to the components of effectiveness in different ways.
Using 37 studies that totaled 4,600 teams (units) with 11 employees per team on average, the authors discovered that the mean-corrected correlation between justice climate and effectiveness was .40—this means that how fair the team perceives the organization to be overall, the more likely they are to be effective. As for the separate pieces of organizational justice, the authors found that distributive justice has a stronger relationship (than the other two justice climate types) to both performance and attitudes. This means that the rewards have to be judged as fair when compared to the work performed by the team. Procedural justice had the strongest relationship with how often team members are absent or turnover. And last but not least, interactional justice had the strongest relationship with process effectiveness—teams are unlikely to go above and beyond if they do not view their interaction with leaders as fair.
So, noticing that your team’s performance has leveled off or team attitude and morale is spoiling? You have to make sure you’re seen as being fair. Also, keep in mind that you should not just focus at the individual perception of fairness, you should also focus on making sure rewards are appropriate for the team, team-level policies and procedures are fair, and they have treat each team equitably in their day-to-day interactions.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
source for picture: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/Other_Objects_g271-Balance_p11750.html
What You Need to Know About Ambition (IO Psychology)
Topic: Personality
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (JUL 2012)
Article: On the Value of Aiming High: The Causes and Consequences of Ambition
Authors: T.A. Judge, J.D. Kammeyer-Mueller
Reviewed By: Ben Sher
Are you striving for money than Donald Trump, more cars than Jay Leno, more medals than Michael Phelps, or an even louder stereo than the one my neighbor plays at 2am? If so, it sounds like you might be ambitious. But how exactly do we define ambition? And where does it come from? That’s trickier. Luckily, a recent study by Judge and Kammeyer-Mueller (2012) explains what ambition really is, where it comes from, and what it leads to.
The authors define ambition as “The persistent and generalized striving for success, attainment, and accomplishment”, and explain that it usually involves setting goals. This differs from conscientiousness or the need to achieve. Ambition is specifically concerned with outcomes like money or prestige, whereas people who feel a need to achieve are more interested in developing skill and competence, and are less concerned about material rewards. How is ambition different from aspirations? Aspirations refer to a very specific goal that a person strives for. Ambition is a trait, which means it refers to behavior which is consistent over time. The ambitious person continues to find new goals to strive for.
The authors note the divergent attitudes society has taken toward ambition. Historically, some writers have viewed ambition as a good thing, because it seems to lead toward hard work and success. However, others have considered ambition a vice, because its over-emphasis on the pursuit of external wealth leads to inadequate emphasis on internal fulfillment and happiness. So what does research say?
In this study, the authors used more than sixty years of data from the Terman life-cycle study, which led them to the positive side of ambition. First, they identified several underlying factors related to ambition. These include conscientiousness, extraversion, low neuroticism, general mental ability, as well as parents’ occupational prestige. This makes ambition a mid-level trait, meaning it is a combination of these more fundamental factors, and is more directly related to behavior and outcomes.
So what outcomes does ambition predict? The authors found that ambitious people achieved higher levels of education, had more prestigious jobs, and had higher income. This eventually led to modest increases in life satisfaction and longevity, but not the dismal curse of emptiness and discontent that might be expected. Not too bad, right?
What does this study mean? While it’s easy to take common vague terms like ambition and invoke the expression “I know it when I see it”, doing so might not always lead to good practice. As I-O psychologists, our standard needs to be higher. Studies like this highlight the importance of well-defined traits, as well as the need for exploring the role of specific traits in workplace success and happiness.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
Fighting Back or Playing Nice: How Employees React to Bullying Bosses
Topic: Human Resource Management
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (JUL 2012)
Article: Employees’ Behavioral Reactions to Supervisor Aggression:
An Examination of Individual and Situational Factors
Authors: M. Mitchell, M. Ambrose
Reviewed By: Chrystal Ensey
It’s no secret that supervisor aggression is a serious issue facing many organizations with a wide range of consequences from retaliation and turnover to lawsuits. However, little attention has been given to the reasons why employees react differently to perceptions of supervisor aggression. While it is unlikely that all instances of supervisor aggression will completely stop within any given organization, it is possible to help shape how employees will react to those situations. Most research focuses on the deconstructive reactions (e.g., getting even with their boss or taking it out on a co-worker) with less emphasis on the constructive reactions (e.g. finding an effective solution to the problem). So, what factors come into play that causes an employee to have a constructive or deconstructive reaction to their boss’ aggressive behaviors?
The current article explores both individual (locus of control) and situational (fear of retaliation and behavioral modeling) factors in employees’ reactions to supervisor aggression. Locus of control involves the extent employees believe they (internal) or others (external) have control over events in their life. This article suggests that employees with an internal locus of control are more likely to engage in constructive reactions to supervisor aggression while fear of retaliation proved to be a successful prevention to destructive reactions. These findings promote a holistic view of employees’ reactions to aggressive bosses by taking into account both the individual and situation-specific factors; it is the involvement of both these factors that will ultimately shape how an employee will react.
As practitioners this article illustrates the need to identify employees’ individual capabilities to select constructive reactions, provide resources and support to employees for maximizing their constructive options, and to provide an organizational culture that values a respectful workplace with clear policies and procedures to protect employees from aggressive behaviors.
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2012, July 30). Employees’ Behavioral Reactions to
Supervisor Aggression: An Examination of Individual and Situational Factors. Journal of
Applied Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0029452
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
Welcome to the Dark Side…
Topic: Counterproductive Work Behavior
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (2012)
Article: A Meta-Analysis of the Dark Triad and Work Behavior: A Social Exchange Perspective
Authors: Ernest H. O’Boyle Jr., Donelson R. Forsyth, George C. Banks, Michael A. McDaniel
Reviewed By: Lauren A. Wood, M.S.
Research identifying, examining, and defining positive work behaviors (e.g., transformational leadership behaviors, prosocial behavior) have been conducted since the beginning of I-O Psychology. Notably, one broad conclusion can be drawn—increasing positive work behaviors leads to positive work outcomes (e.g., job performance, OCB, profitability, return customers). In addition to studying positive work behaviors and outcomes, the “dark side” of work has been gaining much attention recently. Indeed, counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) like employee theft, leader derailment and organizational politicking are all powerful, negative workplace behaviors that confirm a darker side of employee behavior—one which could have deleterious consequences for organizations in terms of performance, profit, and reputation.
One of the strongest predictors of an employee’s behavior is his/her personality. Accordingly, the personality traits of integrity, authenticity, and optimism predict positive behaviors and positive outcomes. Conversely, in the current study, the authors were interested in identifying negative personality traits and their potential link to negative workplace behaviors. Three negative personality traits (i.e., machiavellism, narcissism, and psychopathy) previously labeled as the “Dark Triad”, were selected. Machiavellism describes a strong belief in the need to manipulate others, cynical outlook regarding others, and the guiding belief that the end justifies the means. Narcissism describes an exaggerated self-view, and a strong desire for power, status, and admiration. Finally, psychopathy refers to a lack of remorse for others, a general lack concern for others as well as social norms, and smooth, glib behavior along with the use of impression management tactics.
O’Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, and McDaniel (2012) conducted a meta-analysis of the dark triad traits and their correlations with negative workplace outcomes (i.e., CWBs and low job performance). They found each of three dark triad traits to be related to increased CWB, and two (machiavellism and psychopathy) were related to low job performance. Taken together, this indicates that these negative personality traits can impact important work outcomes for the worse.
What can organization do to decrease the dark side’s effects? Well, to start, watch out for potential job candidates exhibiting characteristics of the dark triad: lack of concern over ethics, manipulation (machiavellianism) over-confident, over-self promoting, entitled (narcissism), overly glib over use of impression management tactics (psychopathy). Additionally, be aware of workplace dynamics that may “bring out” the dark triad in current employees. For example, aggressive public compensation programs, the “pitting” of teams or departments against each other, sub-standard fairness or HR policies, and a lack of structured, understood corporate values.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
Dangerous Jobs: A Reason to Play Hooky? (IO Psychology)
Topic: Leadership, Culture, Health & Safety
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (JUL 2012)
Article: Aversive workplace conditions and absenteeism: Taking referent group norms
and supervisor support into account.
Authors: M. Biron, P. Bamberger
Reviewed By: Ben Sher
Why do people play hooky from work? The stress-free paradise of a day at the beach, great seats for a baseball game on a perfect summer afternoon, that irresistible allure of Olympic equestrian as it airs live on TV… these are all possible reasons. But what
about workplace dangers? Is it possible that people avoid work because they are afraid of getting injured while doing dangerous jobs? Actually, research has found mixed results. Sometimes workplace danger means more absenteeism and sometimes it means less absenteeism. What explains this? Recent research by Biron and Bamberger (2012) has provided an interesting answer to this question.
The authors first discuss the mixed results of past research. When workplace danger
was associated with increased absenteeism, researchers explained that employees
avoid work to avoid injury or to recuperate from past injuries. That certainly makes
sense. When workplace danger was associated with less absenteeism, researchers
explained that these dangerous jobs provide extra pay to offset potential danger, or
attract and retain the kind of employees who are unfazed by danger. That makes sense
too.
So what determines whether danger will lead to more or less absenteeism? The
authors conducted a study of transit workers in a major US city, and found that two
factors influence this relationship. The first factor is the perception of “permissive
peer absence norms”. This means the general attitude that an employee’s closest
co-workers share regarding the acceptability of absence. When co-workers think
occasionally missing work is acceptable, dangerous work conditions are associated with more absenteeism.
The second factor is the perception of supervisor support. When employees feel that
their supervisors support their role at work, dangerous work conditions are associated
with less absenteeism. Why would this happen? The authors say that employees who
feel supported might experience greater organizational commitment, and be reluctant to do anything which could harm the organization. Additionally, they might have greater access to training that could make the workplace safer.
Finally, the two factors of peer absence norms and supervisor support work
together. When supervisors were more supportive of employees, peer acceptance
of absenteeism was not as likely to cause actual absenteeism. This follows social
psychology research that says cultural influence from peers is subject to competing
influences, such as influence from organizational leaders.
This study highlights the importance of positive organizational culture and proper
supervisor support. If these factors help influence whether people in physically
dangerous jobs show up for work, certainly they can help positively influence employees doing jobs with less apparent danger.
Biron, M. & Bamberger, P. (2012). Aversive workplace conditions and absenteeism:
Taking referent group norms and supervisor support into account. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 97(4), 901-912.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
