Leading Employees by Involving Them Leads to Results

Topic: Leadership, Job Performance, Citizenship Behavior      
Publication: Journal of Organizational Behavior
Article: Does participative leadership enhance work performance by inducing empowerment or trust? The differential effects on managerial and non-managerial subordinates
Authors: X. Huang, J. Iun, A. Liu, and Y. Gong
Reviewed By: Benjamin Granger

 Isn’t it nice when our supervisors invite our ideas/opinions and include us in decision making?  Of course it is!  These kinds of supervisory behaviors are known as participative leadership behaviors and, not surprisingly, they tend to positively impact employee job performance.  Although this effect is expected for all employees, a recent study by Huang and colleagues (2010) suggests that the reasons why participative leadership behaviors lead to improved performance depends on a subordinate’s hierarchical level in the organization. 

In their study, Huang et al. collected a sample of 527 employees from a Fortune 500 telecommunications company in China.  As expected, they found that participative leadership behaviors of supervisors leads to improved task performance and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) of their subordinates.  But, as mentioned above, there appear to be slightly different reasons why these effects occur depending on the hierarchical level of the subordinate (i.e., managerial vs. non-managerial).  

Specifically, the effect of participative leadership behaviors on performance for managers appears to be due to psychological empowerment (i.e., feelings of competence and meaningfulness) whereas these effects are due to the trust placed in leaders for non-managerial employees. 

Getting Published is Hard to Do

Topic: Off the Wall
Publication: Journal of Organizational Behavior
Article: Publishing today is more difficult than ever
Authors: N. Ashkanasy
Reviewed By: Benjamin Granger

 As editor-in-chief of the Journal of Organizational Behavior (JOB), Neal Ashkanasy opens the first issue of 2010 with a commentary on how dramatically publishing in applied psychology has changed in recent years.  He recalls a time when obvious rejections were quite frequent and easy to spot due to poor quality writing and research.  According to Ashkanasy, those days appear to be over as only a very small percentage of journal submissions are of obviously poor quality. Additionally, the quantity of submissions to the top I/O journals is increasing dramatically.  For instance, in 2009, JOB received twice as many submission as it did in 2007 (WOW, I know!).

Importantly, Ashkanasy offers several recommendations that are relevant to practitioners and early career researchers (e.g., graduate students) interested in publishing.  Researchers should…

Emotional Labor & Turnover…Fake It ‘Til You Make It?

Topic: Turnover
Publication: Journal of Organizational Behavior
Article: A predictive study of emotional labor and turnover
Authors: S.L. Chau, J.J. Dahling, P.E. Levy, J.M. Diefendorff
Reviewed By: Katie Bachman

 Good customer service may be causing workers to consider leaving their organization. Putting on a smile through a difficult interaction can deplete emotional resources—referred to as emotional labor—particularly when the employee does not fully subscribe to making the interaction positive.

There are two types of acting that employees engage in during these interactions: deep acting and surface acting. Deep acting occurs when employees attempt to change their feelings toward a situation so that their emotions match their behavior. Surface acting, on the other hand, occurs when employees merely mask their feelings and present an outward appearance that does not match their feelings. It is this second form of acting, surface acting, which causes emotional depletion. In this study, emotional depletion was positively related to turnover intentions (i.e. people who are “burnt out” think about leaving). Turnover intentions were then linked to actual turnover rates 6 months later.

Deep acting had the opposite effect. Employees who engaged in deep acting actually had lower levels of turnover intentions. Employees who fully take on their roles when interacting with others expend fewer emotional resources.

For business scenarios, this has some pretty obvious implications. Managers can go beyond encouraging employees to maintain that sunny disposition, and instead promote deep acting over surface acting. By doing so, they may keep those employees happier and with the organization longer – and that’s something to truly be happy about (I mean it!).

Chau, S. L., Dahling, J. J., Levy, P. E., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). A predictive

study of emotional labor and turnover. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30,

1151-1163.

So Many Constraints…Just Let Me to be Conscientious!

Topic: Job Performance, Personality
Publication: Journal of Organizational Behavior
Article: A meta-analytic investigation into the moderating effects of situational strength on the conscientiousness-performance relationship
Authors: R.D. Meyer, R.S. Dalal and S. Bonaccio
Reviewed By: Benjamin Granger

 Conscientiousness is a personality trait that predisposes employees to be well-organized, attentive to detail, dependable, and goal/task-oriented.  It’s not surprising then, that conscientious employees tend to perform well at work.  Despite the importance of conscientiousness for predicting job performance, Meyer, Dalal, and Bonaccio (2009) found that the relationship between conscientiousness and job performance varies depending on the strength of the work situation (i.e., situational strength). 

Situational strength refers to the constraints that are present within a work environment or occupation that restrict a person from expressing their true personalities.  When defining how strong an occupation is, Meyer and colleagues considered the degree of constraints present within the job and the severity of consequences possible.  In other words, they determined the degree to which employees have discretion over how their jobs are done and whether severe consequences are possible.  For example, “curators”, “poets” and “personnel recruiters” are weak occupations whereas “subway operators”, “airline pilots” and “surgeons” are strong occupations.

Although conscientiousness is indeed a good predictor of job performance, Meyer et al.’s meta-analysis shows that it is a better predictor of performance for jobs in which employees have more freedom to engage in their job duties (i.e. weak occupations).  Overall, these findings suggest that organizations should consider the extent to which occupations are weak or strong before employing measures of conscientiousness in the employee selection process.

Meyer, R.D., Dalal, R.S., & Bonaccio, S. (2009). A meta-analytic investigation into the moderating effects of situational strength on the conscientiousness-performance relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 1077-1102.

Job Demands are to “I can’t” as Job Resources are to “I won’t”

Topic: Burnout, Job Analysis, Job Performance

Publication: Journal of Organizational Behavior
Article: How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism
Authors: W.B. Schaufeli, A.B. Bakker, W. Van Rhenen
Reviewed By: Benjamin Granger

There are many theories that explain the causes and effects of experiencing work strain and work engagement.  Schaufeli and colleagues (2009) investigated one such theory known as the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) theory which focuses on what needs to be done on the job (i.e., job demands) and the social, psychological, physical resources that the job provides for the employees (i.e., job resources).

In their study of 201 managers in a telecommunications company, Schaufeli et al. examined how several specific types of job demands and job resources impact employee absenteeism, burnout, and work engagement.  Surveys were distributed to participants at two time points one year apart.

Schaufeli et al. found that as job demands such as work overload and emotional demands increase over time, so does burnout.  Alternatively, an increase in job resources such as job control, social support, and opportunities to learn tend to lead to decreased burnout.  Moreover, these job resources also lead to increased employee work engagement.

Interestingly, Schaufeli and colleagues’ results suggest that while burnout is related to involuntary absenteeism (e.g., illness), work engagement is related to voluntary absenteeism (e.g., low motivation).  This implies that changes in job demands ultimately have an impact on employee health (“I can’t” go to work today) whereas job resources tend to relate more to motivation (“I won’t” go to work today). Finally, Schaufeli et al. found that work engagement and job resources have a reciprocal relationship and build on each other over time. 

Ultimately, the authors note the important link between employee health and well-being and organizational performance.  So, it’s not just in the interest of the employee to have reasonable demands and available resources – it’s good for the organization too. 

Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., & van Rhenen, W. (2009). How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 893-917.Schaufe

What’s the Big Deal with Emotional Intelligence Tests?

Topic: Emotional Intelligence, Selection
Publication: Journal of Organizational Behavior
Article: Faking emotional intelligence: Comparing response distortion on ability and trait based EI measures. 
Authors: A.L. Day, S.A. Carroll
Reviewed by: Benjamin Granger

Many believe that job applicants can fake personality tests.  And we know that in some cases (e.g., unproctored, online) cheating on ability tests is possible.  So what else can job applicants fake?  (Or what can they not fake!?)

Recently, Emotional Intelligence (EI) tests have emerged in personnel selection contexts.  Many of the arguments against using EI measures in selection settings revolve around questions such as: Does EI really predict job performance?  Is EI just a repackaging of personality traits?  Can EI measures be faked?  Although the answers to some of these questions are unclear, Day and Carroll (2008) were interested in increasing our understanding of the response distortion issue when measuring EI. That is, the researchers investigated the susceptibility of two popular EI measures to faking.

The two EI measures utilized in this study are referred to as the MSCEIT and the EQ-i respectively.  Both measures are designed to assess an employee’s EI, but they differ in their specific definitions of EI.  For example, the MSCEIT is an ability-based EI test that defines EI as a set of abilities that allows one to perceive emotions, communicate emotions effectively, and understand the emotions of others.  The EQ-i assumes that EI is a set of traits (much like personality).  Thus, the EQ-i defines EI as a set of traits, capabilities, and non-cognitive skills that allow individuals to successfully adapt to pressures and demands within the environment.

Since faking is clearly a major issue in employee selection, Day and Carroll asked the question, which of these EI measures is more susceptible to faking: the ability-based or the trait-based EI measure?

As predicted, Day and Carroll found that the EQ-i (trait-based measure) was more susceptible to faking than was the MSCEIT.  When motivated to do so, participants were able to distort their responses to the EQ-i in an attempt to make themselves look like better job applicants.  However, job applicants were unable to do this for the MSCEIT.  Moreover, Day and Carroll showed that when applicants were selected based on their scores on the EI measures, a large number of those who faked would have been admitted into the organization based on their EQ-I scores.

Day and Carroll’s findings have important implications for organizations using or interested in using EI measures for employee selection.  It appears that measuring EI with an ability-based test (e.g., MSCEIT) as opposed to a trait-based test (e.g., EQ-i) makes response distortion less likely and reduces the possibility of selecting job applicants based on distorted information. 

Day, A. L., & Carroll, S. A. (2008). Faking emotional intelligence (EI): Comparing response distortion on ability and trait-based EI measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 761-784. 

Fostering Fairness in the Workplace: Why it’s so worth it!

Topic: Citizenship Behavior, Organizational Justice 
Publication: Journal of Organizational Behavior
Article: Meta-analytic tests of relationships between organizational justice and citizenship behavior: Testing agent-system and shared-variance models.     
Blogger: Benjamin Granger

Leaders are recognizing that organizations, employees, and customers benefit from non-required cooperative behaviors that go on in the workplace.  These behaviors are referred to as organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs).  Because OCBs are highly valued in organizational settings, business researchers and practitioners are interested in uncovering the causes of these behaviors.

Researchers Fassina, Jones, and Uggerslev (2008) were particularly interested in how employee perceptions of justice (fairness) relate to OCBs.  More specifically, the authors were interested in how different types of justice related to OCBs that are directed toward the organization versus to other individuals in the organization.  Fassina et al. specified three distinct types of justice: (1) procedural justice (the extent to which employees feel organizational practices are fair), (2) distributive justice (the extent to which employees feel organizational outcomes are fair), and (3) interactional justice (the extent to which employees feel they are treated fairly by organizational leaders).

So, based on the findings of Fassina et al.’s meta-analysis, what conclusions can be drawn to help organizations increase the occurrence of OCBs in the workplace?

1) When employees feel that their organizational leaders are treating them fairly (high interactional justice) they are more likely to engage in helpful behaviors targeted toward other individuals and work groups within the organization (e.g., helping coworkers with job-related tasks).  In other words, if a person feels he/she is being treated fairly by an individual (leader), he/she is more likely to be helpful to other individuals,.

2). When employees feel that organizational practices are fair and just (high procedural justice) they are more likely to engage in helpful behaviors aimed at the organization (e.g., going beyond expectations to cooperate with organizational policies).  In other words, if a person feels he/she is being treated fairly by the organization, he/she is more likely to be helpful to the organization. 

Importantly, Fassina et al.’s findings suggest that interactional justice and procedural justice are better predictors of OCBs than distributive justice. This is an important finding because it suggests that when employees receive unfavorable outcomes in the workplace (e.g., demotion, poor performance appraisal), they will not necessarily discontinue engaging in positive workplace behaviors like OCBs.  In fact, if the employees feel that their supervisors are treating them with respect and the procedures by which organizations make decisions are fair (even if outcomes are unfavorable), then they should still engage in OCBs.

The great news is that managers and organizations have the power to influence their employees’ perceptions of justice.  Although negative outcomes in the workplace are inevitable, organizational leaders can affect the ways in which decisions are made and how employees are treated.  If organizations are successful in treating employees fairly and arriving at outcomes (positive or negative) by means which are considered fair by employees, then they will likely increase the occurrence of OCBs in the workplace.  So what exactly can managers do?  By giving employees explanations as to why decisions were made or how outcomes were decided upon, employees are likely to perceive high levels of interactional justice.

    Fassina, N. E., Jones, D. A., & Uggerslev, K. L. (2008). Meta-analytic tests of relationships between organizational justice and citizenship behavior: Testing agent-system and shared-variance models. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 805-828.

Hope…and Improved Job Performance?

Topic: Job Performance
Publication: Journal of Organizational Behavior
Article:  Exploring the role of hope in job performance: Results from four studies. 
Blogger: Benjamin Granger

Yeah sure, hope isn’t as common a concept in organizational research as job satisfaction or commitment, but Peterson and Byron (2008) found that hope does indeed play a role in predicting employee job performance.  In addition, the authors were interested in finding out if hopeful employees solve work-related problems differently than their less hopeful colleagues.  Although we are all somewhat familiar with hope (seriously, who doesn’t hope to win the lottery?), the way in which it is defined by Peterson and Byron is not necessarily what we might expect.  According to the authors, the concept of hope, as it applies to the organizational setting, is not a passive emotional state (i.e., I hope the Rays win the pennant!).  Rather, hope involves an active component, and it refers to an overall feeling that one can achieve his or her goals.

The authors found that employees who were more hopeful did in fact perform better on the job one year later than those who were less hopeful.  Impressively, these results held true for three different samples involving different job types and levels at different organizations (i.e., retail associates, mortgage brokers, and management executives).  Utilizing a fourth independent sample, the authors found that hopeful executives created more potential solutions and had higher quality solutions to a work-related problem than less hopeful executives.