Category Archives: *Journal of Management

Mixed Messages: Gender Differences in Performance and Promotability Ratings (IO Psychology)

Reply

Topic: Gender, Performance Appraisal
Publication: Journal of Management (MAR 2012)
Article: A Meta-Analysis of Gender Group Differences for Measures of Job Performance in Field Studies
Authors: Roth, P. L., Purvis, K. L., & Bobko, P.
Reviewed By: Thaddeus Rada

In human resource management, we are often concerned with group-based differences in the measurement of performance, satisfaction, and other variables (for legal and ethical reasons). Previous meta-analytic studies (studies that look at data/findings across multiple studies) have examined the role of certain group characteristics, such as ethnicity, on performance, but gender differences have not been studied as frequently. In addition, as the authors of the current article note, previous meta-analyses that have assessed gender differences in performance have generally utilized various proxies for performance (e.g., absenteeism, satisfaction ) rather than actual performance measures (e.g., supervisor ratings). The goal, then, of this meta-analysis, was to examine gender differences on these realistic performance indices in field samples.

Meta-analyzing a total of 61 employee samples (rather than college student samples), the authors concluded that, on the average, there appears to be a great deal of similarity between levels of performance for males and females. Despite this conclusion, the authors also found support for their hypothesis that males generally receive slightly higher promotability ratings. The authors’ conclusions about gender differences in performance and promotability point out a potential management paradox in the following sense: although small, performance differences seem to suggest that females are better performers, yet they appear to be rated slightly lower on promotability compared to males.

Roth et al. suggest a number of future research directions to assist in increasing our understanding of this phenomenon, including studies of other types of job performance (such as work samples) and additional research on the influence of gender on promotability ratings in general (Roth and colleagues only identified eight such studies to include in the current meta-analysis). It will be useful to continue conducting such research in field settings, as the studies included in this meta-analysis did; as such, this may be a prime opportunity for academic-practitioner collaboration in IO psychology.

Roth, P. L., Purvis, K. L., & Bobko, P. (2012). A meta-analysis of gender group differences for measures of job performance in field studies. Journal of Management, 38, 719-739.

human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management

 

 

source for picture: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/On_The_Phone_g371-Businesspeople_With_Head_Phone_p46959.html

Motivating GenY: Generational Differences in Work Values

Reply

Topic: Motivation
Publication: Journal of Management (SEP 2010)
Article: Generational differences in work values: Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreasing
Authors: J. M. Twenge, S. M. Campbell, B. J. Hoffman, and C. E. Lance
Reviewed By: Lauren Wood

The U.S. workforce is primarily comprised of 3 generations of workers – Baby Boomers (born between 1946-1964), GenX (1965-1981), and GenY (1982-1999). Although empirical research examining differences in generational work values is scarce, understanding differences between these 3 groups is important for organizations attempting to recruit and manage the youngest generation in the workforce – GenY.

The current study assessed generational differences in work values (leisure, social interactions, intrinsic rewards, extrinsic rewards, and altruism) which motivate employees to perform on the job. The results reveal that organizations may need to implement different strategies in order to successfully motivate GenY employees. For example, compared to Baby Boomers and GenX, GenY workers are more likely to value leisure activities (time off, work-life balance, flextime) and less likely to value social interactions (work friendships, team work). When examining workplace rewards, GenY seem to be are more motivated by extrinsic rewards (tangible rewards) than by intrinsic rewards (intangible rewards).

Continue reading →

Another Shot at the Transfer Problem

1

Topic: Training
Publication: Journal of Management (JUL 2010)
Article: Transfer of training: A meta-analytic review
Authors: B.D. Blume, J.K. Ford, T.T. Baldwin, and J.L. Huang
Reviewed By: Benjamin Granger

Organizations spend massive amounts of money on employee training and development every year with the expectation that what is learned in training will be transferred to and used on the job.  But there’s a problem: it has been well established that employees often do NOT transfer what they learn to the job.  In the continuing pursuit of solutions to this “transfer problem”, Blume et al. present a meta-analysis that explored predictors of transfer of training.

Confirming the existence of the “transfer problem”, Blume et al. found that post-training knowledge (usually measured with a post-test) is only a modest predictor of transfer of training.  Utility reactions, which refer to trainees’ perceptions of the usefulness or relevance of the training content to their jobs, were also only modestly related to transfer.  Other measures of training effectiveness that had small but meaningful relationships with transfer included post-training self-efficacy and motivation.  However, finding out how much employees enjoy their training experience is NOT a good indication of how effectively they will transfer their learning to the job.

While there were many individual and organizational characteristics that lead some employees to transfer their knowledge more effectively than others, the best predictors of transfer of training were cognitive ability, conscientiousness, a work climate that facilitates transfer and voluntarily participating in training.

Importantly, Blume et al. distinguish between closed skills and open skills.  While closed skills are performed similarly or exactly like they are taught in training (e.g., computer program), open skills refer to sets of principles that can be applied in many different ways (e.g., leadership skills).  That is, there is no one “right way” to perform open skills. Interestingly, Blume et al. discovered that most of the predictors investigated were more predictive of transfer for open skills.  The exception is cognitive ability, which was found to be much more strongly related to transfer of closed skills than for open skills.

Blume et al. conclude that there is “no magic bullet” for predicting transfer of training and thus the transfer problem must be attacked from multiple angles with multiple strategies.  The authors note that strategies for increasing trainees’ motivation prior to training and preparing coworkers and supervisors to support employees in transferring their learning to the job have high potential for improving transfer of training.

Despite their practical suggestions, Blume et al. suggest that the most effective way for an organization to enhance transfer of training is to integrate learning into its culture.  In other words, new (and possibly expensive) processes are not necessary to enhance trainees’ transfer.

 

Blume, B.D., Ford, J.K., Baldwin, T.T., & Huang, J.L. (2010). Transfer of
training: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 36(4), 1065-1105.

What Does Organizational Tenure Really Buy You?

5

Topic: Citizenship Behaviors, Counter-Productive Work Behavior, Job Performance

Publication: Journal
of Management (SEP)

Article: Organizational tenure and job performance

Authors: T.W.H.
Ng and D.C. Feldman

Reviewed By: Benjamin Granger


Ladder Success  It is
often intuited that employees who remain in an organization longer gain more
knowledge of their job and the organization and thus perform at a higher level
than employees with less tenure. 
Indeed, it’s no secret that organizational tenure is common factor
considered in administrative decisions such as offering promotions and awarding
raises and other fringe benefits (e.g., pensions, vacation days).  For many of us, anecdotal evidence
probably confirms the assumption that as tenure within the organization
increases, so does performance. 
But what does the research say? 

In a recent
meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational tenure and job
performance, Ng and Feldman (2010) combined data from 350 studies which
included nearly 250,000 research participants.  Not surprisingly, the authors expected that organizational
tenure would be favorably related to various forms of job performance.  Their findings generally confirmed that
organizational tenure is favorably
associated with performance.  However,
the relationships between tenure and performance was quite weak overall. 

While
there was modest positive association between organizational tenure and task
performance and organizational citizenship behaviors, the benefit of tenure
appears to drop as tenure increases.

Continue reading →

Subconscious Goal Setting: Pursuing Goals Without Even Knowing It

Reply

Topic: Goals
Publication: Journal of Management (JAN 2010)
Article: The relevance and viability of subconscious goals in the workplace
Authors: G.P. Latham, A.D. Stajkovic, and E.A. Locke
Reviewed By: Benjamin Granger

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you probably know that goal-setting is an effective strategy for improving employee performance. What you might not know is that goal-setting research is moving outside of the boundaries of human consciousness.  That’s right, a new line of research has recently emerged on what is known as subconscious goal-setting. Remember the stories of movie theaters mixing frames of popcorn in their previews clips to get the audience to visit the concession stand?  Subconscious goal setting works a bit like that.  Although it may sound a little ‘out there’, support is building for its effectiveness in the workplace.

In a recent review of subconscious goal setting, Latham, Stajkovic, and Locke (2010) discuss the history of research on the human subconscious (outside of an employee’s conscious awareness – Freud may come to mind?!), reasons why management researchers have largely neglected it, and recent research on subconscious goal setting in work contexts.

Latham and colleagues conclude that subconscious goals can lead to improved performance in work settings. Additionally, unlike conscious goals (e.g., “My goal is to…”), subconscious goals do not use up employees’ mental resources. And we all know how quickly our mental resources can be drained at work. But best of all, subconscious goal setting is easy.  Managers can prime subconscious goals by simply inserting strategic words into training manuals (e.g., “customer focus”, “generate sales”) or distributing achievement-related posters or mouse pads (e.g., person winning a race) throughout the workplace.  Amazingly, these things can impact employee performance at work!

But, doesn’t this seem just a little bit scary?  While subconscious goal setting is certainly intriguing, it does pose a serious ethical dilemma, which Latham and colleagues acknowledge. Now, where’s my popcorn….

Latham, G.P., Stajkovic, A.D., & Locke, E.A. (2010). The relevance and viability of subconscious goals in the workplace. Journal of Management, 36, 234-255.

Great Expectations: Catalyst for Employee Learning and Development

Reply

Topic: Job Performance, Leadership, Training
Publication: Journal of Management (OCT 2009)
Article: Pygmalion and employee learning: The role of leader behaviors
Authors: X.M. Bezuijen, P.T. van den Berg, K. van Dam, and H. Thierry
Reviewed By: Benjamin Granger

Isn’t it fascinating how our expectations of others so frequently come to fruition?  The finding that supervisors’ expectations of their employees’ capabilities accurately reflect their actual performance is well-established. This phenomenon is called the self-fulfilling prophesy (AKA the Pygmalion effect). But, how and why do supervisors’ expectations of employees’ capabilities reflect their performance? Is it magic? Is it a sixth sense? Is it prescience?

No, no and no….

A recent study by Bezuijen and colleagues (2009) suggests that supervisors’ expectations of their employees’ capabilities to learn job-related skills is primarily due to goal-setting (bummer, I had guessed magic). They demonstrated that high expectations lead supervisors to assign more difficult and specific goals to employees and also provide these employees with more learning opportunities.  Increased opportunities, in addition to more difficult and specific goals, make it more likely that employees will engage in learning and development activities.

Although we may think of expectations as passive judgments or subjective thoughts, Bezuijen et al. found that they lead directly to supervisory behaviors that impact employee learning and development activities.

Warning to Managers:
Your expectations of employees can have a significant impact on your behaviors toward them and consequently their behaviors at work. So set your expectations high and your employees will return the favor.

Bezuijen,, X.M., van den Berg, P.T., van Dam, K. & Thierry, H. (2009). Pygmalion and employee learning: The role of leader behaviors. Journal of Management, 35, 1248-1267.

Fair is Fair

Reply

Topic: Organizational Justice
Publication: Journal of Management
Article: Perceptions of discrimination: A multiple needs model perspective. 

 
Blogger: James Grand

Fairness I know the saying goes “Life isn’t
always fair – sometimes you’re the bug and sometimes you’re the
windshield.”  But in truth, things
aren’t usually that black and white (or life and death, if you will).

One theory of organizational justice
(fairness) that has begun to grow in prominence within the research literature
in recent years is that of Cropanzano et al.’s (2001) multiple needs model of
justice.  In short, the multiple
needs perspective states that every human being has three needs that contribute
to the experience of justice: 
economic needs (e.g., “I’m paid fairly for my share of the work”),
interpersonal needs (“My manager treats my ideas with respect”) and moral needs
(“My company takes the ethical high road”).  Thus, according to the theory, a sense of unfairness is
likely to arise if any one or more of these needs goes unfulfilled or is
transgressed.

While perhaps intuitively sensible, one
of the major problems with the multiple needs theory is precisely that it has
largely remained a theory—there has
been little empirical data to support the claim that negative actions in the
environment can violate these needs, and that failures to meet these needs lead
to meaningful outcomes for organizations and their employees.  Heeding this very call, Goldman and
colleagues (2008) attempted to test these hypotheses using a sample of nearly
6000 American workers across a variety of occupational titles.  In their study, Goldman et al. attempted
to test a sequential model in which 1) employees’ levels of perceived
discrimination were negatively linked to each of the three justice needs
(economic, interpersonal, and moral); 2) each need was predicted to positively
affect job satisfaction and organizational commitment; and 3) job satisfaction
and commitment would be negatively related to turnover intentions.

Continue reading →

C’mon, you can trust me!

Reply

Topic: Organizational Justice, Job Performance, Trust
Publication: Journal of Management

Article: The
Relationship between being perceived as trustworthy and performance

Blogger: Larry
Martinez


Cmon you can trust me OK,
so most of the research done on trustworthiness in the workplace has focused on
whether or not you think that your coworkers and leaders are trustworthy and
the related implications (if you don’t trust your boss you’ll be less likely to
perform well for him or her).  But
what about the other side of the coin? 
Dirks and Skarlicki wanted to know how being perceived as trustworthy effects
job performance – the idea being that if your coworkers think you are
trustworthy, they’ll be more likely to offer you resources.  Well, that’s exactly what they found,
but they broke it down into a bit more detail.  Consider the following two facets of trustworthiness:

Capability: Do you have the ability to provide resources?

Integrity: Will you be fair and honest (specifically, will you return the favor if someone helps
you out)?

The
authors found that the interaction of those two variables predicted job
performance.  That is, if your
coworkers perceive you to be capable and fair, they’ll see you as being
trustworthy and thus offer resources to you.  Those resources, which you most likely couldn’t have gotten
on your own, help you do your own job better.  This relationship only held for employees who were
considered to have both high
integrity and high capability; the performance of employees with lower
integrity scores did not change, regardless of how high their ‘capable’ ratings
were. 

So,
in an organization, leaders can focus on the potential performance benefits for
being trustworthy (capable and
fair/honest).  Training programs
would have to focus on both capability and integrity, since one or the other
doesn’t have as strong of a stand-alone effect.

Reference

Catching the Creativity Bug

Reply

Topic: Creativity
Publication: Journal of Management 
Article: 
Multiple tasks’ and multiple goals’ effect on
creativity:  Forced incubation or
just a distraction? 


Blogger: Benjamin Granger

Catching the Creativity Bug There’s
no doubt that organizations value employee creativity.  Researchers Madjar and Shalley (2008)
wanted to identify factors that influence creativity at work.  Specifically, they wanted to find out
the following: 

      -Does it help or hinder creativity if an employee has multiple tasks to
complete in the midst of producing creative work? 

       -If an employee has specific goals for his/her creativity tasks, does this
promote creativity?

          -Are employees more creative if they are given the freedom to choose    how
they move from task to task?

OK,
so the authors are interested in how these factors influence creativity.  But what about creativity is important
here?  Madjar and Shalley focused
their study on what is known as the incubation
stage of the creative process.  The
incubation stage is similar to the “aha” phenomenon in which an individual
cannot initially come up with solutions to a problem, takes a break (goes to
the gym, walks the dog, performs another job-related task) and suddenly comes
up with solutions.  These example
activities represent intervening tasks that take an employee’s conscious mind
off of the task that requires creative thinking.  Hmm, now this sounds a little fishy doesn’t it?  Does this REALLY happen in the
workplace?

As
it turns out, it does!  So,
according to this study, organizations can improve their workforce’s creativity
by:

Continue reading →

Ten Years of Team Goodness

Reply

Topic: Teams
Publication: Journal of Management
Article: Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future (#34, 2008). 
Blogger: Rob Stilson

Ten years of team

In
1997, Cohen and Bailey assessed all research that had been done with teams up
to that point.  From that article,
Cohen and Bailey recommended breaking down the team studies into five areas:

  1. Group cognition,
    affect, and mood
  2. Group potency and
    collective self-efficacy
  3. Virtual and global
    teams
  4. Environmental
    (institutional) factors
  5. Time

Ten
years later, Mathieu and crew revisited the Cohen and Bailey article, following
up on the results five areas.  The
new study notes great progress in the areas of group cognition, group potency
and collective self-efficacy, and virtual and global teams, but further
research is needed in the areas of affect, mood and the final two mentioned.
There have been some theoretical advancement in areas 4 and 5 and Mathieu et
al. encourage researchers to put some numbers to these theories with some
empirical findings.  Studies in the
field are more prevalent than they have ever been (which is good) but also
present many new problems with their complexity. Note for those of you folks
well-versed in this topic:  So far
the input-process-output (IPO) and input-mediator-output-input (IMOI) models
have served us well, but as teams get more complex, more models accounting for this
complexity will be needed.

Continue reading →