Category Archives: *Personnel Psychology
Lead, Follow, Or Get Out of the Way (IO Psychology)
What comes to mind for most of us when we think of leadership styles we admire can be summed up in two words, “transformational leadership.” Transformational leaders inspire others with a mission and vision for the future, and motivate their followers to achieve more than they ever dreamed possible.
Traditionally, the bulk of research in the area of transformational leadership has focused on transformational leaders’ personal qualities and how they drive change. Less has been known about the conditions under which a transformational leadership style is most successful and when it has the most impact on followers.
In their most recent study Li, Chiaburu, Kirkman and Xie (2013) examined follower characteristics and perceptions that influence the effectiveness of transformational leadership. They found that:
- The more prototypical of the group the leader is, the less necessary transformational leadership is to stimulate followers to take action.
- Transformational leadership is less effective when followers strongly identify with their teams. Team members of cohesive teams gain inspiration laterally from each other and are less reliant on inspiration from their leader.
- Traditionalist employees’ value of conventional hierarchal structures predisposes them to defer to their leaders, regardless of the leader’s leadership style, thereby reducing the impact of transformational leadership on their likelihood to perform citizenship behaviors.
- Followers with proactive personalities are naturally inclined to take charge and bring about positive change, with or without transformational leaders’ support.
- High learning goal oriented employees are less likely to need the motivation of transformational leaders to achieve their goals and are less subject to their leaders’ influences.
Bottom Line- It’s not all about the leader! Followers’ responsiveness to their leader’s transformation efforts is influenced by their perceptions of their leader and leadership as well as their individual characteristics.
Boundaries to success: Conditions under which human resource practices do and do not increase performance of small firms
Previous research has demonstrated that human resource practices aimed at acquiring, training, retaining, and motivating a proficient workforce (e.g., high-investment human resource systems, high-performance work systems) increase firm performance 1. However, the research on the impact of human resource practices on firms with less than 100 employees is more sparse and less certain. In addressing this void in the literature, Clint Chadwick of the University of Kansas, Sean A. Way of Cornell University, Gerry Kerr of the University of Windsor, & James W. Thacker of the University of Windsor analyzed the human resource practices and performance of 96 for-profit, private-sector Canadian small firms from areas such as wholesale trade, manufacturing, and retail. To assess human resource practices, the authors surveyed managers about their human resource practices oriented toward acquiring talent (e.g., recruitment, screening, and selection), training talent, retaining talent (e.g., promotion from within and employee ownership), and motivating talent (e.g., employee ownership and performance-based pay). In order to determine firm performance, the ratio of firm sales to the number of employees was calculated.
Results indicated that systems of human resource practices impact the performance of small firms. Further, the conditions under which human resource practices affect firm performance were also identified. Specifically, systems of human resource practices have a positive impact on performance when the company has sufficient resources and a large amount of capital. Conversely, systems of human resource practices are counterproductive and have a negative impact when the company’s resources are stretched too thin, such as when they are pursuing a resource-intensive strategy to grow or differentiate.
Aberrant personality and career performance (IO Psychology)
Previous research has shown that personality traits – such as being conscientious, open to experience, and outgoing – predict job performance 1. What about uncommon (i.e., aberrant) characteristics such as being obsessive-compulsive, antisocial, and narcissistic? According to a study by Bart Wille , Filip De Fruyt, & Barbara De Clercq of Ghent University, aberrant personality characteristics also predict job performance. Specifically, borderline features, which includes having unstable interpersonal relations and poor impulse control; schizotypal traits, such as odd thoughts and disorganized thinking; and avoidant tendencies, such as social inhibition and hypersensitivity to criticism, were related to negative career outcomes. In contrast, antisocial traits, such as superficial charm and a disregard for others, and narcissistic features, such as a strong sense of self-importance and a need to be admired, were related to positive career outcomes. As an illustration of how antisocial and narcissistic traits may have a positive affect on career outcomes and allow people and companies to achieve great success, think of Gordon Gecko from the movie Wall Street. Or, if you prefer non-fiction, think of the various leaders of organizations who are charged with insider trading (e.g., Raj Rajaratnam), fraudulent accounting (e.g., Enron), or creating a ponzi scheme (e.g., Bernie Madhoff).
Overall, these results were found through a 15-year study of 247 Belgian college students. In 1994, participants responded to a personality questionnaire, and 15 years later, their career performance was evaluated. The NEO PI-R, a comprehensive personality questionnaire, measured personality. Income, number of subordinates, and managerial position served as indicators of extrinsic career success, and job satisfaction, career satisfaction, and perceived job stress served as indicators of intrinsic career success.
Value alignment for jobs and occupations (IO Psychology)
When designing a job, consider the values of the occupation within which the job resides, according to research by Erich C. Dierdorff of DePaul University & Frederick P. Morgeson of Michigan State University. For example, imagine that you’re designing an internal consultant job that you expect to be filled by someone who comes from the occupational field of industrial and organizational psychology. In crafting the type of tasks that this job will involve, consider the values of the occupation as a whole. For instance, if people within the occupation tend to value achievement and independence, ensure that the job you create incorporates these features. If you do so, it’s likely that the employee will derive satisfaction from his or her job.
In their study, Dierdorff & Morgeson assessed the work characteristics and job satisfaction of 805 individuals from 230 occupations. The Work Design Questionnaire assessed work characteristics, and sample items include “The job allows me to decide on my own how to go about doing my work” and “The job itself provides feedback on my performance.” Questions such as “I like the kind of work I do” and “I like my job better than the average worker does” measured job satisfaction. Lastly, information from the O*NET database served as the indicators of six occupational values: achievement, independence, altruism, status, comfort, and safety. Sample questions that assessed these values include “Workers on this job get a feeling of accomplishment” and “Workers on this job get to try out their own ideas.” Results indicated that five of the occupational values – achievement, independence, altruism, status, and comfort – are related to various work characteristics. Further, work characteristics – as a reflection of overall occupational values – were related to job satisfaction.
Job performance and personality
Topic: Personality
Publication: Personnel Psychology (1991)
Article: The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis
Authors: Murray R. Barrick & Michael K. Mount
Reviewed By: Scott Charles Sitrin
Personality and job performance are related, according to a study performed by Murray Barrick of Texas A & M University and Michael K. Mount of the University of Iowa. Those who are conscientious – which refers to, among other things, being punctual, orderly, detail oriented, and organized – performed their job better. This finding is particularly strong because, in terms of methodology, it was found through a process known as a meta-analysis in which the results of many studies – 117 in the case of this investigation that yielded a sample size of nearly 24,000 – are combined.
In an attempt to explain what a meta-analysis is through the use of an analogy, imagine that you’re trying to decide if you should see Breaking Dawn, the last movie in the Twilight series. If you just ask one friend, he could steer your wrong, but if you ask 10 friends, you should be able to average out their opinions to get a better sense of the quality of the movie. The latter option is akin to a meta-analysis, and through this procedure, the authors found that conscientiousness predicted performance ratings, levels of productivity, training proficiency, salary level, tenure, and turnover. The subjects in these studies were professionals (e.g., engineers, doctors), police, managers, salespeople, and skilled workers (e.g., flight attendants, medical assistants).
Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
source for picture: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/Business_People_g201-Smiling_Business_Team_p100142.html
Working too much? Spending lots of time with family? You’re probably not sleeping enough
Topic: Work-life Balance
Publication: Personnel Psychology (WINTER 2012)
Article: Borrowing from sleep to pay work and family: Expanding time-based conflict to the broader nonwork domain
Authors: Barnes, C. M., Wagner, D. T., & Ghumman, S.
Reviewed by: Alexandra Rechlin
Pretend for a minute that you have a lot you want to do today. This is probably not a difficult task. You have important projects to get done for work, you want to spend time with family and friends, and you really would like to get a decent night’s sleep. Unfortunately, there aren’t enough hours in the day for you to get everything done. So what do you do less of?
Research in the work-life balance literature mainly focuses on time spent at work and time spent with family. In other words, if you spend more time at work, you spend less time with family, and if you spend more time with family, you probably spend less time working. But what about other important activities that you do, like sleep?
Christopher Barnes and his colleagues recently found that people tend to take time away from sleep so that they can spend more time working and with family. This is probably not a surprise to you. In fact, spending more time working and with family has an increasingly negative effect on time spent sleeping. In other words, if you spend a little extra time at work, you probably won’t lose much sleep. But if you spend a lot of extra time at work, you will probably lose quite a bit of sleep.
Some of the top people in your organization are probably spending significantly more time working than do others in your company, and this likely means that they’re taking some time away from sleep in order to work extra. Getting insufficient sleep obviously has many negative consequences, so over time their performance may actually decrease due to sleep deprivation. Therefore, don’t force your top performers to work much longer hours, and maybe try to support those who are working overtime. You can provide coffee at work, allow for scheduled naps, and make sure your employees aren’t working too much. Your employees will thank you for it.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
source for picture: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/Family_g212-Family_p36583.html
Come a Little Closer: Community diversity and inclusiveness affect organizational outcomes (IO Psychology)
Topic: Diversity
Publication: Personnel Psychology (Winter 2012)
Article: Crossing the threshold: The spillover of community racial diversity and diversity climate to the workplace
Authors: B. R. Ragins, J. A. Gonzalez, K. Ehrhardt, & R. Singh
Reviewed by: Alexandra Rechlin
Organizations are looking to increase diversity in the workplace, and the United States is becoming more racially diverse as well. But are the racial composition and inclusiveness of the community also important to organizational outcomes? A recent study of accounting professionals in the U.S. indicates that they are.
Belle Ragins and her colleagues found that when White employees lived in a community in which they were racially dissimilar to others, they were more likely to intend to move and therefore leave their jobs. This was not the case for non-Whites. The authors also found that perceived inclusiveness of the diversity climate of their community negatively predicted moving intentions; in other words, the more negative the diversity climate, the more likely an employee was to move away from the community. This effect was stronger for people of color than for Whites. Finally, employees who planned to move were also more likely to search for other jobs and to leave their jobs, and they showed more physical symptoms of stress at work.
These results indicate that community diversity also has an effect on organizational life. Organizations should be interested in the diversity and diversity climate of their communities, so in order to help retain their best employees, they should be more involved with fostering inclusiveness. The authors suggest that organizations can become more involved with community programs and initiatives that increase intergroup interaction and create economic opportunity for everyone, such as programs that help fund minority-owned businesses or provide equal educational opportunities.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
source for picture: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/Business_People_g201-Multi_Ethnic_Business_Team_p66548.html
What Attracts Applicants Throughout the Recruiting Process?
Topic: Recruiting, Human Resources
Publication: Personnel Psychology (AUTUMN 2012)
Article: Recruiting through the stages: A meta-analytic test of predictors of applicant attraction at different stages of the recruiting process
Authors: K. L. Uggerslev, N. E., Fassina, and D. Kraichy
Reviewed By: Megan Leasher
In the competition for true talent, I often picture companies as robots donned in red or blue plastic, battling in a yellow ring to conquer and win the best of the best candidates. But my retro devotion to Rock’em Sock’em robots always reminds me that someone is controlling the levers. The moves of the Blue Bomber and the Red Rocker are really being choreographed by each company’s recruiters. Recruiters launch the battle, and candidates’ perceptions of the organization and its corresponding brand image must be considered throughout the process. If recruiters and organizations know what will keep applicants interested and continuing through the process, they have a better chance at getting the best talent on board. But what sorts of things matter to candidates? And do these things change as a function of the stage of the process?
That is exactly what the authors wanted to learn. They conducted a large-scale research study that analyzed the results across 232 studies investigating applicant reaction in recruiting. They looked at all phases of recruitment, including early stages in which applicants are generated, middle stages in which candidates are going through the hiring process but have not yet received an offer, and the final stage, in which candidates are presented a job offer and must make a final decision. They also investigated a number of characteristics that can impact applicant attraction, including characteristics of the job itself, characteristics of the organization, behaviors of recruiters, candidates’ perceptions of the steps in the hiring process, perceived fit with both the organization and the job, and others. Their ultimate goal was applause-worthy from a practical perspective: if they could isolate at which stage(s) each aspect of recruiting predicted applicant attraction most strongly, they can then advise organizations how to best build their hiring processes and allocate budgets to recruit the best candidates.
This study yielded a number of findings, three of which I choose to explore. First, the extent to which a candidate perceives that they “fit” with the organization and the job was found to be the strongest predictor of applicant attraction across all stages of recruitment. Organizations should actively work to cultivate perceptions of fit in talented candidates. A successful company should work to creatively tailor their hiring processes and/or provide feedback to strong candidates to demonstrate that they will be a good fit with their values, goals, and ideals. Instilling these sentiments both early on and throughout the hiring process is critical for retaining and eventually securing the best talent.
Second, recruiter behaviors (e.g. competence, personableness) were strong predictors of applicant attraction in the earlier parts of the process. This is likely before candidates have learned much about the job and/or organization. As the “face” of the organization in early stages, applicants make significant judgments based on how recruiters act, and these judgments will make them decide whether or not to proceed in the process. As such, it is in an organization’s best interest to allocate time and resources to bringing on personable, knowledgeable recruiters who can quickly connect with candidates. One bad recruiter has the power to leave a bad impression and turn away oodles of talent.
Lastly, organizational characteristics (e.g. work environment, image, size) were also strong predictors of applicant attraction, having a greater influence in the middle of the process. Once candidates are moving through the process and have started to gain knowledge about the company, this information matters much more than how recruiters act. It is interesting to note that job characteristics did not have as large of an impact. With so much lateral movement and internal promotions happening within organizations these days, an individual is likely to change jobs within an organization, thus placing a greater importance on overall organizational fit.
Recruitment often falls at the intersection of art and science; levers are pressed with calculated, precise movements that launch a choreography of performances. This research helps us better understand this intersection and how we should allocate resources accordingly.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
source for picture: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/Business_People_g201-Job_Interview_p66417.html
Getting by Giving: Why Leaders Succeed by Serving (IO Psychology)
Topic: Leadership, Organizational Performance
Publication: Personnel Psychology
Article: CEO Servant Leadership: Exploring Executive Characteristics and Firm Performance
Authors: Peterson, S. J., Galvin, B. M., Lange, D.
Reviewer: Neil Morelli
Sometimes you have to give more to get more. The same is true when it comes to how CEOs lead their company and how well their company performs. According to Peterson and her colleagues, when the CEO (usually the most powerful and influential player in the organization) demonstrates servant leadership their firm becomes more successful.
Recently, organizational research, in combination with business strategy, has shifted its interest to study how the more relational styles of leadership have an impact at the organizational level. In this study, servant leadership was the style of choice and is defined as leading by placing a heavy weight on personal integrity, caring for the needs of followers, and having a “strong moral compass.” Peterson and colleagues not only wanted to see the organizational outcomes of servant leadership, but also to understand what determines this leadership style.
After sampling 126 CEOs from the technology industry, the researchers found that narcissism negatively predicted servant leadership, and founder status (whether the CEO founded the firm) positively predicted servant leadership. They also found that these two characteristics were mediated by organizational identification—whether a CEO sees his or her identity as being synonymous with the identity of the organization. As for firm performance, servant leadership positively predicted return on assets, meaning that there is a relationship between leading by valuing others more highly than oneself and organizational performance.
Of course, the most obvious practical implication is that the non-narcissistic, founding CEO who highly identifies with his or her organization and displays servant leadership will be more successful, but there are other important points to note. As the authors suggest, having leaders at any level share a “we” mentality over a “me” mentality will help leaders at any level develop more servant leader behaviors. Also, knowing what kind of characteristics to look out for will be helpful to anyone involved in the decision-making process in promoting or selecting new leaders for the future.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
A new rating scale for multisource feedback (IO Psychology)
Topic: Feedback, Job Performance, Measurement
Publication: Personnel Psychology (AUTUMN 2012)
Article: Evidence for the effectiveness of an alternative multisource performance rating methodology
Authors: B. J. Hoffman, C. A. Gorman, C. A. Blair, J. P. Meriac, B. Overstreet, & E. K. Atchley
Reviewed by: Alexandra Rechlin
Do you receive multisource feedback (also called 360 degree feedback) at work? Based on its extreme popularity, my guess is that you do. An important question, therefore, is how to make the ratings more accurate and thus more informative for development. Brian Hoffman and his colleagues recently conducted two studies in which they developed and evaluated the efficacy of a new type of scale, called frame-of-reference scales (FORS), to use in multisource feedback systems.
FORS start with a definition of the dimension being rated, as well as examples of both effective and ineffective behavior for that dimension. The actual items are then presented. FORS differ from normal rating scales in that a definition and behavioral examples are provided. In this way, FORS are similar to frame-of-reference training, except that the information is presented in written format along with the items (as opposed to being provided in a training program). FORS are different from behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) in that BARS link specific behaviors with each scale point (whereas FORS provide examples of effective and ineffective behavior).
The authors compared FORS with standard rating scales (which were similar to behavioral observation scales) and found that using FORS increased accuracy and led to greater differentiation among dimensions. When compared to frame-of-reference training, using FORS led to similar levels of accuracy. FORS therefore seem to be an important development in the improvement of multisource feedback ratings; FORS lead to increased accuracy and are not as expensive or time-consuming as BARS and frame-of-reference training.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
