Citations Flashcards
Dansereau, Graen, & Haga 1975
LMX theory
Yukl (1994)
guidelines for TL
Hunter et al., 2013
Self Esteem Workshops that give insights into employee strengths raise self esteem and self efficacy; Interventions designed to increase self esteem or self efficacy greatly increase job performance
Hackman & Oldham, 1976
Job Characteristics Theory; JCT focuses on how org tasks Job characteristics theory (Hackman & Oldham, 1976) is a theory of employe motivation and work design that focuses on how elements of a job can affect work attitudes and behaviors. These job characteristics include psychological meaningfulness, responsibility, and knowledge of skill variety, autonomy, task identify, task significance, and feedback. The presence of these characteristics then facilitates psychological states (meaningfulness, responsibility, knowledge of work results), which then influence work related outcomes such as performance, motivation, and satisfaction.
Morris & Campion, 2003
misalignment between needs values etc vs. what a job offers = low levels of motivation and satisfaction
Klein, Wesson, Hollenbeck, and Alge (1999)
Employee participation in goal setting increases the commitment to reaching the goal
Vroom 1964
expectancy theory OG
Adams 1965
equity theory
Burke (2014)
types of org change
Forsyth, 2013
curvilinear relationship of cohesion to performance; IPO model which is common to many models of team functioning. Inputs are conditions that exist prior to group activity, processes are interactions among group members, outputs are results of group activity. Has been dominant in explaining performance, based on classic systems theory. Causal structure, inputs (individual, team, environmental factors) are causal to group processes (mediators) which are causal to outputs (performance, member reactions). Follows linear progression from inputs to outputs, assumes functioning is static instead of dynamic.
Bell, 2007
meta; surface level variables vs. deep level variables in influencing team performance. Conscientiousness good, high GMA good especially for creative tasks, extraversion good. Deep level composition variables more important than surface level, especially over time. Implications on team member selection. Low agreeableness not usually good but can depend on task. People who enjoy teamwork = good for teams.
Devine, Clayton, Phillips, Dunford, & Melner (1999)
definition of team
Mackay, Allen, & Landis (2017)
UWES = low to moderate incremental validity over individual job attitudes. EE = low incremental validity over a higher order job attitude construct representing the combo of other attitudes in the prediction of effectiveness; the results suggest EE is better conceptualized as a higher order measure of job attitudes and may be better to apply as a broad predictor rather than administering seperate measures of job attitudes.
Kahn (1990)
defined employee engagement as the degree to which individuals invest their physical, cog- nitive, and emotional energies into their role performance. According to Kahn, engaged individuals are psychologically present, attentive, connected, integrated, and focused in their role performance
Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, and Bakker (2002)
contemporary definition of engagement that followed Kahn, defining engagement as “a positive work-related state of mind comprised of vigor, dedication, and absorption. Vigor refers to high levels of energy, the willingness to invest effort, and persistence at work-related tasks. Dedication relates to feelings of involvement in one’s work and the experience of enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge. Lastly, absorption is characterized by full concentration, immersion, and engrossment in one’s work whereby time passes quickly and one has difficulties detaching oneself from work. Personal, job, and work engagement are conceptually different but complementary to eachother
Schaufeli & Bakker (2004)
JDR model; proposes that job resources, psycho-social work characteristics such as autonomy, social support, and job feed- back, activate a motivational pathway leading to work engagement and better well-being. Personal resources also activate this pathway; they are individual characteristics such as self-efficacy, resilience, and optimism, which individuals can draw on to overcome work challenges and stay engaged. Job demands include workload, time pressure, and emotional demands and can activate a health impairment pathway lead- ing to poor well-being, engagement, and performance.
Christian, Garza, & Slaughter (2011)
Contextual predictors of EE = jobs that provide social support, performance feedback, autonomy, learning opps, task variety; evidence of incremental validity in predicting job performance over and above commitment; Employee engagement is a real, useful thing. It has discriminant validity from and criterion validity over job attitudes; but they did not discrimiante between the two primary conceptualzions of engagement to get their estimates; thus kahn and scheufeli’s scales were in there together
Rich, LePine, and Crawford (2010)
Engaged employees perform better than non-engaged’ Job engagement scale; designed to measure Kahn’s 1990 conceptualization of engagement
Macey & Schneider, 2008
Describes “trait” engagement: Proactive personality, positive affect, and conscientiousness; says that engagemetn’s nomological network has not been rigorously studied; questions construct validity of enggaement as its defined today
Schaufeli & Bakker (2003)
The UWES, most common measure of EE; contains elements of job sat, involvement, and commitment; their theory proposes engagement as vigor, dedication, absorption; also contends that burnout and engagement are opposite.
Frese (2008)
Employee engagement is nothing but construct proliferation
Greenhaus (1985)
work-family conflict occurs when there are incompatible demands between work and family roles
Judge, Thoresen, Bono, and Patton (2001)
meta; Job sat positively predicts work performance
Colquitt (2001)
Dimensionality of org justice - distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational
Ajzen & Fishbein (1977)
Broad attitudes (like job sat) will strongly predict an equally broad behavioral criterion
Locke and Latham (1990)
goal setting theory
Motowidlo and Van Scotter (1994)
Task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance
Bommer et al 1995
Correlation between objective and subjective performance is only .39. this relates to criterion problem.
Bernardin et al (1976)
BARS
Murphy & Cleveland (1991)
Four possible goals that managers may adopt during PA: task performance goals that are purely motivated to increased performance levels and that are directly tied to the organization’s goals in conducting PA; (2) interpersonal goals that focus on ways to maintain or improve positive work climate, maintain feelings of equity, or illustrate power/influence over subordinates, (3) strategic goals to us PA to increase his/her standing the the org by eliminating poor workers and rewarding and promoting good workers, (4) internalized goals to provide as accurate appraisals as possible.
Gottfredson and Aguinis (2017)
LMX is a simple and parsimonious rationale that explains the relation between leadership behaviors and follower performance, suggesting that relational leadership theory is perhaps the best theoretical explanation, out of many currently in use, for why leadership behaviors lead to follower performance; practical implication is that leadership training should focus more on improving the leader follower relationship, as currently there is heavy focus on leader behaviors.
Judge, Piccolo, & Illies (2004)
Meta analysis that offers support for validity of Initiating Structure and Consideration (Ohio Leadership Studies); we have been too quick to denounce their importance; validities of behaviors generalizable across time and settings
Stogdill (1974)
found two types of leader behaviors that were universally effective: initiating structure (task focused) and consideration behaviors (people-focused). Mixed results meant these findings fell out of favor, but they really could be right and we need more research
House (1971)
Path Goal Theory; The leader’s role is to align the goals of followers with the goals of the organization. Inconclusive support; probably too complicated of a model; based on OLS initiating structure and consideration, looks at moderators of those
Judge and Piccolo (2004)
TL most strongly related to leadership effectiveness (.44); meta; Strong correlations between TL and several aspects of leader effectiveness; moderate correlation between cognitive ability and leadership performance; personality traits to leaderhsip
O’Neill and Salas (2018)
High performance work teams = deliver on org objectives and grow member capabilities over time. Primary ways to maximize team effectiveness: develop team ability to work across boundaries (multi team systems), build climate of psych safety, manage development issues (helps to spend more time exploring roles and tasks in first phase, then reflecting), emphasizing alignment of members with org goals via KSAs
Mesmer Magnus & DeChurch (2009)
info sharing positively predicted team performance, cohesion, and knowledge integration
Marks, Mathieu, and Zaccaro (2001)
teams are multitasking and perform multiple processes simultaneously to achieve goals; emergent states = constructs that characterize proporties of a team that are dynamic and vary as a function of team context, inputs, processes, and outcomes; can be inputs or outcomes. Emergent states are not interaction processes or team actions that lead towards outcomes, but are a result of team experiences and then serve as new inputs.
Morgan (1993)
Integrated PEM and Tuckman’s model;
Team Evolution And Maturation (TEAM), which helps to guide consideration of the development of team performance.team development is characterized by the differential maturation of taskwork and teamwork skills. Results indicate that task- and team-related activities were distinguishable in the middle phases of training, but not at the beginning and end of training.
Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, and Jundt (2005)
IMOI performance model (IPO but includes mediators and feedback loops); time becomes primary focal point in study of teams
Jehn 1995
Team conflict; relationship conflict is BAD; task conflict is GOOD
DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus (2010)
Meta analysis; team cognition is pertinent to effective teamwork and uniquely contributes above and beyond behavioral and motivational variables; people need to be on same page; planning is important and related to team outcomes; laying foundation for team work and task work is important for effective performance over time
Kozlowski, Gully, Nason, and Smith (1999)
Teams don’t build their full capabilitues initially; they form, establish regulatory mechanisms, and evolve over time. Adopts an organizational systems perspective; teams embedded in open but bounded org system that consists of multiple levels (individuals, team, org context). This broader perspective sets top down contextual constraints on teams. Different content, processes, and outcomes are important at different focal levels and different points in time. Phases include team formation, task complication, role compilation, and team compilation.
Burke & Hutchins (2008)
training: supervisor support and reinforcement needed for transfer. Opportunities to practice need to be given immediately. Interactive training methods encourage participation
Kozlowski & DeShon (2004)
Training must have fidelity to be effective
Mathieu & Martineau (1997)
individual characteristics can affect training (motivation, self efficacy, locus of control)
Taylor, Russ-Eft, and Chan (2005)
Meta analysis; transfer of training occurs best when employees are shown examples of good and bad behavior, and given well-defined skills to learn, feedback, and opportunity to practice
Kohn (1993)
Intrinsic motivation overpowers rewards
Parker et al 2003
Meta analysis; psych climate does have significant relationships with work attitudes, motivation, and performance
Armenakis, Harris, & Feild (1999)
3 phases of change: readiness, adoption, and institutionalization. 5 key change message components regardless of intervention model: discrepancy, efficacy, appropriateness, principal support, and personal valence
Washington & Hacker (2005)
“Empirical evidence that managers who understand the change effort are more likely to be less resistant to change. Specifically, the more a manager understood the change, the more likely they were to be excited about the change, the less likely that they would think the change effort would fail, and the less likely they were to state that they wished their organization had never implemented the change. “
Self and Shraeder (2009)
address primary sources of resistance by matching these sources with specific elements within the Armenakis framework that lead to readiness for change. The primary sources of resistance are: personal factors, org factors, content/process factors.
Meyer & Allen (1991)
Three lower-order factors of org. committment: Affective, Normative, & Continuance
Kast & Rosenzweig (1972)
General systems theory of organizations
Halbesleben 2010
Meta analysis that showed that feedback, autonomy, social support and organiza- tional climate are consistently associated with engagement and or particu- lar facets of engagement. also showed that personal resources (for example, self-efficacy and optimism) are strongly related to engagement.
Thomas and Bretz 1994
Increasing PA fairness = less turnover, higher performance without raising costs for org
Aguinis 2014
definition of PM= “a continuous process of identifying, measuring, and developing the performance of individuals and teams and aligning performance with the strategic goals of the organization PM process
Schneider 1987
ASA framework
Kirkpatrick (1996)
4 level model of training evaluation criteria
level 1 reaction (favorableness)
Level 2 learning (KSAs squired)
Level 3 behavior (info learned applied to job)
Level 4 results (target outcomes achieved)
Edmondson 1999
psych safety OG; 7 item scale of psych safety, intended for use at team level which she argues is where the construct belongs, but is also isomorphic and can be used at any level
Bacharach 1989
a good org theory is parsimonious, clear, falsifiable, has utility, and has a broad scope
Beer and Nohria 2000
theory E and theory O of org change
Randall and Nielsen 2010
three categories of intervention activities: primary interventions (aimed at reducing or eliminating source of problem), secondary interventions (aimed at increasing resources of individuals to deal with job demands), and tertiary interventions (aimed at helping employees suffering from ill health)
Nielsen and Abildgaard 2013
Framework for designing and evaluating interventions;
Organization as process perspective, where actors in an org are connected through continuous and collective processes.
Phases of interventions are
initiation: develop intervention strategy, determine role of formal actors. Develop communication strategy. Disperse information at meetings or through media to org actors to facilitate mental model building.
Screening: ID the problem areas, this is the basis for designing the intervention activities and serves as baseline measurement. Take pre and post measurements of outcome space. Document all of this, the way this goes will also influence org actors mental models.
Action planning: document what the intervention will look like, activities, purpose, process, who is involved. Specify which level the activities will target; individuals, groups, leaders, or org procedures/structure
Implementation: document activities before during and after to improve understanding of intervention outcomes. Compare the plans made to the activities that were actually implemented. Document who was responsible for administering the activities.
Evaluation: distribute post test survey with process measures (psych health & well being measures), collect qualitative data.examine chain of causality effects to establish whether changes are brought about by intervention or alternative explanations. Evaluate changes in: attitudes, values, knowledge. Development of individual resources such as self efficacy, job crafting, likely to develop from participatory interventions. Changes in working procedures, working conditions, employee health and well being, org health (quality and performance)
Taris and Schreurs 2009
the happy worker-productive worker thesis suggesting that happy employees are more productive (and vice versa)
Cox et al 2007
the return-on-investment argument that improvements in the way work is designed, organized and managed will also lead to a healthier organization economically
Aust and Ducki 2004
Senior management support vital to successful planning, implantation, and evaluations of org interventions; line managers play key role in facilitating intervention via support
Nielsen, Abildgaard, and Daniels (2014)
the screening process of intervention design should focus on getting information about the work context, and as a process of sense making. Standardized questionnaires don’t capture the context. Making tailored questionnaires via qualitative methods is effective in developing contextually relevant survey items, including employees and giving them ownership, and made it easier to design the intervention activities .
Van Iddekinge, Agunis, Mackey, and DeOrtentiis (2018)
meta; Motivation moderates the relationship between ability and performance; state measures of motivation better predictors of performance than trait measures
Huffcutt and Woehr (1999)
Interviews will best predict performance when one trained interviewer is used for all applicants
Schmidt and Hunter, 1998
selection methods; cognitive ability and conscientiousness excellent predictor of performance across jobs; GMA predicts performance and job knowledge, job knowledge predicts performance; basically most things that talk about GMA in selection can be cited by this; also validity generalization GMA + either integrity test or structured interview useful for selecting both entry level or experienced employees. Work sample tests very valid as well but way more costly and can only be used with applicants who have already been trained; same with structured interviews. Integrity tests provide larger incremental validity due to the fact that its correlation to GMA is 0. Conscientiousness very valid predictor a well. Previous work experience only good predictor for first 5 years on job.
Roth et al., 2001
selection methods; cognitive ability has highest adverse impact of any selection method and lacks face validity
Shaffer and Postelthwaite, 2012
selection methods; Validity of personality inventories asking about work personalty is more valid than asking about personality in general
Buster, Roth, & Bobko (2005)
Select SMEs that is a mix of incumbents and supervisors, of varying races and genders, representative of various functions of the job, have acceptable job performance. Have SMEs link KSAOs back to performance dimensions for validity. Develop standards based on Minimal qualifications
Shippmann et al (2000)
Job analysis superior to Competency modeling except when linking to business goals and strategies; competency modeling is top down; first step is to identify what the org needs to be effective, then identifty KSAOs that allow an employee to be effective in that manner.
Sanchez & Levine (2009)
Competency Modeling (CM) has the potential to fill an important void in Traditional Job Analysis (TJA), specifically the infusion of strategic concerns in day-to-day employee behavior. Moreover TJA and CM pursue fundamentally different goals
Levine and Ash (1983)
CJAM uses work related JA methods and worker-related methods, primiarly used for selection and training
Angoff (1971)
The Angoff method of determining cutoff scores
Austin & Villanova (1992)
discussed four controversies in the job performance literature ((but point out that lack of agreement over these four questions is understandable because performance can take on vastly different meanings, is conceptually abstract, and is extremely difficult to measure)): 1. What to consider as job performance (e.g., behaviors versus outcomes). 2. How to measure job performance (e.g., descriptive versus quantitative methods, absolute versus relative ranking systems). 3. What theoretically constitutes job performance and which theoretical models to apply. 4. How job performance is distributed.
Barrick & Mount (1991)
conscientiousness has consistent relationships with all of Job performance for all types. Extraversion and Openenness predictors of training proficiency. Should care about personality
Blume et al 2009
Performance isn’t a normal distribution; forced distribution shouldn’t be used for performance
Bormon & Motowildo (1997)
Task and contextual performance
Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, & Sager (1993)
Dimensions of job performance; supervisors give equal weight to task and conceptual performance. This article provides a framework of each performance types. Antecedents of task performance more likely to be GMA, antecedents of contextual more likely to be personality. Contextual performance an important element of the future of work as task performance is dominated more by technology, more teams, more customer service oriented. This article argues for the importance of contextual activities being included in performance criteria.
Murphy (2008)
Explains 3 models of performance rating relationships and problems with them; raters should be given tools and incentive to perform well on ratings as well as measurement instruments that are effective; important for criterion problem
Sproule (2009)
Basically anything that has to do with content validity; argues for the legitimacy of content validity, but content validity alone is not sufficient validity evidence, but is a primary source of overall test validity. Content validity is supportive of criterion related validity. Excluding GMA tests, tests that are more direct and/or more job specific have higher levels of criterion related validity. Many public sector organizations rely primarily on content validity evidence because criterion related validity studies are not feasible due to range restriction, no suitable criterion measures, and/or sample size issues.
Ekuma 2012
Importance of face validity, ways to increase face validity include being fair, using questions/work sample tests that are truly reflective of job, giving applicant proper info etc.
Campion, Ployhart, & MacKenzie (2014)
SJTs measure social skills, leadership, basic tendencies, job knowledge. Most commonly developed from critical incidents technique; discusses current state and future directions of SJT research
McDaniel, Hartman, and Whetzel (2007)
SJTs add incremental validity over other predictors
Costa and McRae (1985)
Personality inventory used in selection - the NEO FFI
Lang, Kersting, and Hulsheger (2010)
Specific abilities have incremental validity over g; this means we should select on much more than g
Zedeck et al (1996)
banding gives employer flexibility to hire based on secondary hiring factors (e.g. special skills, training); discusses sliding bands as an alternative to top down selection; main reference for sliding bands and using the SEM method
Shmidt 1991
Criticisms of banding; can result in lower utility than top down hiring
Spearman (1904)
Defined g; positive manifold hypothesis
Ployhart & Holtz, 2008
How to reduce adverse impact in selection
Nisbett et al (2012)
Raven Matrices considered best measure of GMA and fluid intelligence available. Can be used cross-culturally, but not completely free of adverse impact
Woehr & Hoffcut (1994)
Rater training and frame of reference training (FOR) reduces error; meta analysis
Grove and Meehl (1996)
mechanical methods of selection better than judgmental
Holling (1998)
Financial benefits from selection program improvement
Schneider (1987)
Citation for ASA framework, original proposal
Arthur, Day, McNelly, & Edens (2003)
empirically driven model of AC dimensions: problem solving, influencing others, consideration/awareness of others, communication, organizing and planning, and drive. Meta showed that problem solving, influencing others, and organizing and planning had the highest criterion related validities.
Ronan and Prien 1971
Job performance is a latent construct, meaning it is intangible and not directly measurable. Criteria are quantitatively measured manifestations or indications of latent job performance and will always contain some degree of error. relevant article for criterion problem
Aguinis et al 2009
key steps to FOR training
Cohen 1988
correlation size conventions .10 = small, .3= medium, .5 = large
Aguinis, Ryan, Gottfredson, and Wright (2011)
Best practices for meta analysis and what meta is intended for
Guyatt, Sackett, and Sinclair (1995)
RCT is the gold standard for org intervention research and for evaluating intervention effects; Internal validity of designs, levels of evidence that describe the hierarchical ordering of research design quality
Campbell and Fiske 1959
MTMM; designed to evaluate the extent to which measures are influenced by the intended traits versus other systematic factors, commonly referred to as method effects.
Binning and Barret 1989
this article calls for a more rigorous and systematic way of criterion development. JA efforts need to focus more on capturing org context, which influences how criterion judgments are made. Construct related validity would benefit from looking at non-work behaviors; such as relating alternative performance criteria to alternative predictors. The nomological network that links constructs to performance domains needs to be strengthened. cite for behavioral-outcome links criterion problem
also, although there are several types of validity, validity really boils down to an interpretation of allll the accumulated evidence
James 1973
criterion problem reference. Criterion models: neglected in terms of both theory and empirical testing.Multiple focuses on collecting multiple criteria of performance and determining the dimensionality and an understanding of the criteria.
Tonidandel and LeBreton 2011
RWA, expanded upon this to use RWA in different types of regression; RWA uses data reduction techniques and variable transformations to create a new set of predictors that are perfectly uncorrelated with each other, then transforms subsequent results from multiple regression analyses back into the predictors’ original metrics. it allows us to determine the relative contribution, or incremental validity, of a predictor to a criterion.
Cattell 1966
eigenvalues > 1 (Kaiser criterion) + scree plot examination helps determine # of factors in EFA
Cronbach & Meehl 1955
construct validity
Nunnally 1978
more abstraction of a construct = harder to measure; .7 is absolute minimum cutoff for alpha when examining internal consistency reliability of measures
Cronbach 1951
Chronbach’s coefficient alpha
Nix and Barnette (1998)
Criticizes the conceptualization of the null hypothesis as being a zero difference; presents an almost impossible situation, it is extremely rare for differences to be exactly 0. also presents problems associated with power and type1/2 errors in NHST . there is a problem of low power studies when using NHST due to the tradeoff between controlling for type 1 error, since so much focus is placed on type 1. It gets to the point where committing a type II error becomes extremely high. This damages our advancement of knowledge. Also, the misinterpretation that p values are a measure of magnitude is severely flawed, as evidenced in researchers’ use of phrases such as “approaching” significance.
Golembiewski et al 1976
Alpha beta gamma change; change is not conceptually unitary; there are types of change that must be recognized in order to understand the effects (or supposed effects) of OD interventions. Focus on change quality rather than solely quantity is important. How can we be sure that change from pre to post is due to the intervention and not to the people themselves?
Williams, Baath, and Philipp 2017
bayesian significance testing as a proposed alternative to NHST
Toops 1944
A unidimensional criterion is ideal, but all criteria are influenced by subcriteria. Many factors influence performance criterion (wages, production, etc). Ultimate criterion unattainable.
DeVellis 2016
Scale development steps
SIOP, 2019
Top trends in I-O: work life balance interventions, creating agile organizations, data viz/communication, changing nature of work, automation of jobs and tasks, sexual harassment at work, gig economy/contract work, working with big data, diversity/inclusion, artificial intelligence/machine learning
Langer, König, and Papathanasiou (2019)
found high automation of interviews not good idea; ambiguity for interviewees, less perceived controllabiity, not accepted by applicants
Campion Campion and Campion 2018
big data techniques that allow for text mining may be able to be used to mitigate adverse impact. This is because it reduces costs associated with traditional assessment techniques. It could mine applicant information collected over a long period of time. Big data mining methods could reveal potential combinations of applicant characteristics that provide incremental validity above and beyond that of current assessments.
Huffcut 2017
What meta analysis is, how its done
Albrecht et al., (2015)
Selecting for engagement; evidence that engagement is a function of both the environment and individual characteristics; select for both broad traits that are related to general job performance as well as achievement orientation and proactive personality, which are both linked to engagement;
Mone and London (2010)
5 ways that PM facilitates engagement: goal setting, feedback/recognition, developmental opportunities, appraisal, and trust climate.
Byrne, Peters, and Weston (2016)
The UWES and other measures of engagement such as the JES (job engagement scale) are correlated but not interchangeable. The UWES overlaps with other job attitudes more than the JES. The UWES has been criticized in terms of construct validity and construct proliferation; it has been shown to be opposite end of burnout (MBI) and indistinguishable from job satisfaction. There are not many validated engagement meeaures which is one reason why this one keeps getting used. Measures that do exist other than JES have construct validity issues and still overlap too much with UWES. The research on engagement has focused on identifying antecedents and consequences under the approach of either investment of the self into work role or as the opposite end of burnout.
Kulikowski 2017
Ambiguous results for factorial validity strucurtre of the UWES using CFA, sample of 21 studies. Indicates lack of validity for UWES. Some items within the UWES are almost identical to items from measures of job sat, positive affect, and commitment. Even the authors of the UWES themselves were not able to determine whether the 1 or 3 factor model was superior.
Deci and Ryan (1985)
self determination theory
Kozlowski and Klein 2000
multi level model building, especially for teams research; provided a multilevel theoretical approach that applied General Systems Theory to explain how organizational/contextual variables interact with individual and team level variables to influence team functioning. They point out that there is often a misalignment of constructs and thus a decrease in construct validity across multi-level model measurement. Thus, to truly understand processes at higher levels, there is a need to acknowledge processes that occur at levels nested beneath that; models, explanations, and construct measurement need to appropriately reflect multilevel approaches.
Gersick (1988)
PEM model; one of the first to propose that groups don’t work in linear stages, but team behaviors are diverse and learning is gradual. Did qualitative analysis and found that groups established an immediate pattern of activity towards their goal with little progress, until a transition point occurred about halfway to the deadline. At this point the group abandons things that aren’t working and adopts new perspectives and makes major progress. Punctuated equilibrium is basically the discontinuous shift and realignment that changes the way groups function in pursuit of their objective. introduced the imporatnce of external factors (e.g., temporal aspect of deadlines) along with internal factors
McGrath (1964)
IPO model in teams, but suggested that team development and functioning is linear
DeCorte, Lievens, and Sacket (2007)
pareto optimal composite for selection; they describe a method for implementing it
Sackett & Roth 1991
Criticisms of banding; usefulness of achieving affirmative action goals is affected by factors like selection ratio and percentage of minority applicants
Motowidlo, Dunnette, and Carter (1990)
introduced CIT for SJT development; designed continuous scoring key
Chan (1998)
proposes composition models for measurmement of team constructs.
Situations in which data from a lower level are used to establish the construct at the higher level
The lower levels play a role in making what’s at the higher level
Sometimes we have to rely on data aggregated from lower levels in order to examine a global construct that doesn’t have a measurement
Five basic forms of composition models: each is defined by the functional relationships between constructs at different levels
Additive: straightforward functional relationship between constructs; meaning of higher level constructs is simply a summation of lower level units
Direct consensus: within group consensus of lower level units
Referent shift consensus: within group consensus measured by agreement of lower level attributes is used
Dispersion: group level characteristic, variability within group
Process composition: concerned with proposing some process from the lower level up to the higher level; functional relationships are analogous relationships
Lance (2008)
criticisms and limitations of assessment centers
Field (2013)
ANdy field book on stats
Urdan (2011)
stats in plain english book
Aamodt (2012)
I-O general textbook
Knight, Patterson, and Dawson (2019)
Target EE interventions this way: bottom up, get manager support, encourage employee participation; job crafting and health promotion seem to work best (mindfulness). EE interventions can work if designed properly.
Pulakos and OLeary 2011
An exponential distribution is more likely to differentiate a greater number of employees that are in the upper echelons of performance, while a normal distribution would compress many of these same employees toward the mid-point. moving away from manager ratings for performance. PA is broken. Cascading and SMART goals great in theory terrible in practice. Need rating competencies (via calibration) and to gather performance data from multiple sources. Needs to be coupled with interventions improving manager-employee communication and trust. we should focus more on facilitating the employee manager relationship and communication, stop focusing interventions on formal features of the system. it’s disconnected from day to day activities and is too administrative in focus
Sanchez and Levine (2012)
JA has been traditionally viewed as a means to an end; simply as a pre-requisite to perform other HR processes. Thus, JA research has traditionally focused on the mehcanics behind performing JA processes; which people to use as SMEs, how to mitigate biased ratings, best methods to use etc. The context under which jobs are performed has been largely ignored, and the psychological experience of work is just now beginning to be considered. We need to explore not only what leads to differences in JA ratings, but why differences exist in order to understand the entire picture of a job.
Daniel (1998)
Problems with NHST, suggestions for remedies
Pierce & Aguinis 2013
TMGT effect; curvilinear relationships
Baron and Kenney (1986)
moderator and mediators
for mediation: predictor related to mediator, mediator related to outcome; if the direct relationship between mediator and outcome does not exist, it is full mediation. Test using linear regression. Logical and theoretical argument for inclusion of mediator must exist.
Campion, Campion, & Campion (2018)
big data techniques that allow for text mining may be able to be used to mitigate adverse impact. This is because it reduces costs associated with traditional assessment techniques. It could mine applicant information collected over a long period of time. Big data mining methods could reveal potential combinations of applicant characteristics that provide incremental validity above and beyond that of current assessments.
DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman, and Humphrey (2011)
For overall leader effectiveness, most important leader traits are conscientiousness and extraversion. Traits better predictor of affective and relational outcomes than performance related criteria, and behaviors have more of an impact on effectiveness than traits. This is because behaviors are more proximal to perceptions.
Hofstede, Neujen, Ohavy, and Sanders (1990)
org culture components; most surface level to deepest: symbols, heroes, rituals, values
First 3 are visible, values are invisible
Knight, Patterson, and Dawson (2017)
Meta that indicates interventions such as leadership training & resource building to improve engagement has a small but significant influence; 4 main types of engagement interventions (personal resource building (increasing individual strengths), job resource building (autonomy & social support, feedback, development), leadership training, health promotion (well being & stress management); the JDR model is usually at the heart of these interventions; group interventions particularly effective
Lewin (1947)
First major stuff on org change; freezing and unfreezing
Shadish,Cook and Campbell (2002)
four types of experimental valdity and their threats
Tuckman (1965)
some of first stuff on group development;
Forming = anxiety, excitement, explore group and establish social structure; initial attachment to group is formed as well as define the nature of the task and how it will be accomplished
Storming = impatience over lack of progress; argue over actions to take, defnesiveness; unsure of projects likelihood for success
Norming = firmly establish rules, roles, and status. Emotional conflict reduced, increase in cooperation and harmony. Constructive criticism and conflict avoidance. Sense of cohesion developed and common goals.
Performing = have better understanding of strengths and weaknesses, good at preventing or working through problems, actively working towards goal and feeling good about it
This model focuses on social interaction and is a stage model, implying linear development; less attention paid to the environment
Kerr, Schriesheim, Murphy, and Stogdill (1974)
contingency theory of leadership based on initiating strucure and consdiration
Tushman and O’Reilley
revolutionary and evolutionary change
Maslach and Leiter 1997
engagement opposite of burnout characterized by energy (vs. exhaustion), involvement (vs. cynicism), and efficacy (vs. inefficacy). Argue that creating engagement is primary goal of any burnout or stress reduction focused intervention, workplace stressors lead to burnout; also made the MBI.
Cook and campbell 1979
quasi experimental designs;
Single group designs without control condition
Designs with control but no pretest
Designs with control conditions and pre tests
Time series designs: assess how introduction of a treatment affects measures of DV; need large number of observations, enhances internal validity because effects can’t be attributed to confounds such as history.
Regression discontinuity: pre test scores can be used to assign individuals to treatment and control conditions, uses levels of pretest scores to assign to conditions and then get post test scores. uses regression to observe effects of treatment.
