Reading Summaries Flashcards
1
Q
Week 1,
A HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RESEARCH AND PRACTICE IN INDUSTRIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
Andrew J. Vinchur and Laura L. Koppes
A
- The paper provides an overview of the history of industrial and organizational (I/O) psychology from the late 19th century to the present day, covering both research and practice in various areas and contexts.
- The paper discusses the origins and early developments of I/O psychology in Europe and the United States, highlighting the influences of functionalism, pragmatism, measurement, scientific management, and social and economic forces.
- The paper examines the impact of World War I and World War II on I/O psychology, especially in terms of personnel selection, performance appraisal, training, leadership, and human factors.
- The paper traces the evolution of organizational psychology and organizational behavior, focusing on the contributions of the Hawthorne studies, the human relations movement, and various theories of motivation, job satisfaction, and leadership¹[1].
- The paper concludes by identifying some general themes, lessons learned, and enduring conflicts in the history of I/O psychology, such as science versus practice, productivity versus welfare, and individual versus group.
2
Q
Week 1,
Research in Industrial and Organizational Psychology From 1963 to 2007: Changes, Choices, and Trends
Wayne F. Cascio and Herman Aguinis (2008)
A
- The paper provides a content analysis of all articles published in the Journal of Applied Psychology and Personnel Psychology from 1963 to 2007, to identify the relative attention devoted to different topics and areas in industrial and organizational (I/O) psychology¹[1].
- The paper examines the trends and changes in the research topics, geographic location, and affiliation of authors, as well as the correspondence between I/O psychology research and human-capital trends in society²[2].
- The paper finds that some areas have become more or less popular over time, while others have remained stable, and that there are some lagged relationships between societal issues and I/O psychology research³[3].
- The paper also finds that most authors are academics based in the United States, and that there is a disconnect between the knowledge produced by academics and the knowledge consumed by practitioners.
- The paper concludes by suggesting some ways to improve the relevance and impact of I/O psychology research, such as creating ethical standards, fostering public awareness, and narrowing the academic–practitioner divide.
3
Q
Week 1,
From Then to Now: The Development of Industrial-Organizational
Psychology in the United States
Raymond A. Katzell & James T. Austin (1992)
A
- The paper reviews the development of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology in the United States from the late 19th century to the mid-1980s, covering both research and practice in various areas and contexts¹[1].
- The paper discusses the origins and early developments of I-O psychology in relation to the influences of functionalism, pragmatism, measurement, scientific management, social and economic forces, and world wars.
- The paper examines the impact of the Hawthorne studies, the human relations movement, and various theories of motivation, job satisfaction, and leadership on the evolution of organizational psychology and organizational behavior.
- The paper traces the changes and trends in the topics, methods, and roles of I-O psychologists over time, highlighting the growth and diversification of the field as well as some enduring conflicts and challenges.
- The paper concludes by identifying some general themes, lessons learned, and future directions for I-O psychology, such as integrating science and practice, addressing societal issues, and expanding international perspectives.
4
Q
Week 2,
DOING COMPETENCIES WELL: BEST PRACTICES
IN COMPETENCY MODELING
MICHAEL A. CAMPION (2011)
A
- The paper presents a set of best practices for competency modeling, based on the experiences and lessons learned from different perspectives, such as applied, academic, and professional¹[1].
- The paper defines competency models as collections of knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) that are needed for effective performance in the jobs in question, and explains how they differ from traditional job analysis in several ways²[2].
- The paper describes 20 best practices divided into three areas: analyzing competency information, organizing and presenting competency information, and using competency information³[3]. The paper provides practical advice and examples for each best practice.
- The paper discusses the advantages of competency models, such as linking to business objectives and strategies, distinguishing top performers from average performers, considering future job requirements, facilitating communication and memorableness, and aligning human resource systems.
- The paper also acknowledges the limitations and challenges of competency modeling, such as lack of empirical research, legal defensibility, organizational acceptance and use, and maintenance of currency. The paper suggests some ways to improve the relevance and impact of competency modeling.
5
Q
Week 2,
Job Analysis and Job Evaluation: The Respondent’s Perspective
Frank Landy (1993)
A
- The paper examines the potential sources of bias and error in job analysis and job evaluation processes, which are used to describe and compare the tasks, knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) of different jobs¹[1].
- The paper reviews the empirical evidence on the effects of various respondent characteristics, such as gender, race, experience, education, and motivation, on the ratings of tasks and KSAOs. The paper also discusses the possible cognitive and social mechanisms underlying these effects.
- The paper suggests that some respondent characteristics may introduce systematic distortions in the job analysis and evaluation results, such as inflating or deflating the importance or complexity of certain tasks or KSAOs based on stereotypes, self-interest, or carelessness.
- The paper proposes some strategies to improve the reliability and accuracy of job analysis and evaluation data, such as developing clear and valid instruments, providing adequate training and orientation to respondents, using multiple sources of information, and applying analytic techniques to detect and correct errors²[2].
- The paper concludes by identifying some general themes, lessons learned, and future directions for research and practice in job analysis and evaluation, such as integrating science and practice, addressing societal issues, and expanding international perspectives.
6
Q
Week 2,
WORK ANALYSIS:
FROM TECHNIQUE TO THEORY
Frederick P. Morgeson and Erich C. Dierdorff (2011)
A
- The paper reviews the development and research of work analysis, which is the systematic investigation of work role requirements and the broader context within which work roles are enacted¹[1].
- The paper discusses the practical choices and challenges involved in conducting work analysis, such as the methods, sources, rating scales, and level of analysis used to collect and analyze work-related information.
- The paper examines the Occupational Information Network (O*NET), which is a comprehensive database of work role requirements for over 900 occupations, and evaluates its strengths and limitations.
- The paper explores the factors that can influence the quality and accuracy of work analysis data, such as cognitive processes, social influences, and rater characteristics, and suggests some strategies to improve the reliability and validity of work analysis data.
- The paper identifies some potential future directions for work analysis research, such as integrating work analysis with performance theory and measurement, examining cross-domain relationships among work role requirements, and addressing the implications of changing work contexts.
7
Q
Week 2,
What is (or should be) the difference between competency modeling and
traditional job analysis?
Juan I. Sanchez, Edward L. Levine (2009)
A
- The paper compares and contrasts traditional job analysis (TJA) and competency modeling (CM) along six dimensions: purpose, view of the job, focus, time orientation, performance level, and measurement approach¹[1].
- The paper argues that TJA and CM are fundamentally different human resource tools that supplement rather than replace each other, and that they serve different goals: TJA aims to describe and measure work assignments, while CM aims to influence and prescribe how work assignments are performed in alignment with the organization’s strategy.
- The paper suggests that TJA is more suitable for applications such as staffing, training, and compensation that require a detailed and objective account of the tasks, knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) of different jobs, while CM is more appropriate for applications such as performance management, succession planning, and career development that require a broad and strategic view of the behavioral themes or competencies that define performance excellence across jobs.
- The paper proposes some ways to improve the relevance and impact of both TJA and CM, such as integrating science and practice, addressing societal issues, expanding international perspectives, creating ethical standards, fostering public awareness, and narrowing the academic–practitioner divide.
- The paper identifies some future research directions for TJA and CM, such as examining their consequences for organizational effectiveness and human resource management, exploring their cross-domain relationships and measurement models, and developing new forms of work analysis that account for changing work contexts.
8
Q
Week 3,
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES:
THEIR MEASUREMENT
AND VALIDITY
Oleksandr S. Chernyshenko, Stephen Stark, and Fritz Drasgow (2011)
A
- The paper discusses the measurement and validity of individual differences in cognitive and psychomotor abilities, personality, and values, which are important predictors of work behavior and performance¹[1].
- The paper reviews the main taxonomies and models of individual differences, such as the general cognitive ability (g), the Big Five personality factors, the RIASEC vocational interests, and the neo-socioanalytic model of personality.
- The paper examines the methods and challenges of assessing individual differences, such as using item response theory, ideal point models, computerized adaptive testing, and web-based testing, as well as dealing with issues of validity, adverse impact, measurement bias, and faking²[2].
- The paper evaluates the use and impact of individual difference test scores for selection and classification purposes, such as predicting various performance criteria, reducing turnover and counterproductivity, enhancing person-organization fit, and matching individuals to jobs³[3].
- The paper identifies some future directions and emerging trends for individual difference research and practice, such as integrating science and practice, addressing societal issues, expanding international perspectives, developing new forms of work analysis, and creating ethical standards.
9
Q
Week 3,
The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology:
Practical and Theoretical Implications of 85 Years of Research Findings
Frank L. Schmidt & John E. Hunter (1998)
A
- The paper reviews the validity and utility of 19 different personnel selection methods, based on meta-analytic findings from 85 years of research in personnel psychology¹[1]²[2].
- The paper shows that general mental ability (GMA) is the best single predictor of job performance and training success across different jobs and settings, with an average validity of .51 and .56, respectively.
- The paper also identifies other selection methods that can add incremental validity and utility to GMA, such as work sample tests, integrity tests, conscientiousness tests, structured interviews, and job knowledge tests.
- The paper provides practical guidelines for choosing the most valid and useful selection methods for different purposes and situations, such as entry level versus experienced hiring, and single versus multiple predictors.
- The paper discusses the implications of the research findings for the development of theories of job performance, such as the role of GMA, job knowledge, personality traits, and situational factors³[3]⁴[4].
10
Q
Week 3,
Test Validity
Stephen G. Sireci and Tia Sukin (2013)
A
- The paper discusses the concept of test validity and its evolution from the early 20th century to the present, focusing on the different types of validity evidence and validation methods¹[1].
- The paper explains that validity is not a property of a test, but rather a characteristic of the interpretations and uses of test scores for a specific purpose, and that validation is the process of gathering and evaluating evidence to support such interpretations and uses²[2].
- The paper reviews the five sources of validity evidence specified in the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA et al., 1999), which are based on test content, relations to other variables, internal structure, response processes, and consequences of testing³[3]⁴[4].
- The paper describes various statistical procedures and research methods that can be used to collect and analyze validity evidence from each source, such as content analysis, factor analysis, item response theory, differential item functioning, cognitive modeling, think-aloud protocols, experimental designs, meta-analysis, and hierarchical linear modeling.
- The paper concludes with some of the major unresolved issues in validity theory and test validation, such as the unitary versus multidimensional conceptualization of validity, the role of values and consequences in validity arguments, the generalization of validity evidence across contexts and populations, and the integration of multiple sources of evidence into a coherent validity argument⁵[5].
11
Q
Week 4,
Personnel Selection
Walter Borman (1997)
A
- The paper provides a historical overview of the development of personnel selection methods and theories, from the early use of intelligence tests and personality inventories to the current trends of situational judgment tests and assessment centers.
- The paper discusses the concept of validity and its importance for evaluating the effectiveness and fairness of personnel selection methods. Validity refers to the extent to which a selection method measures what it intends to measure and predicts relevant outcomes, such as job performance or satisfaction.
- The paper reviews the empirical evidence for the validity of various personnel selection methods, such as cognitive ability tests, personality tests, biodata, interviews, work samples, and references. The paper also compares the relative validity and utility of different methods and combinations of methods.
- The paper examines the legal and ethical issues involved in personnel selection, such as the impact of civil rights legislation, affirmative action policies, and equal employment opportunity laws on the design and implementation of selection procedures. The paper also addresses the challenges of cross-cultural and international personnel selection.
- The paper identifies some of the future directions and research needs in personnel selection, such as the use of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence and virtual reality, the integration of multiple sources of information, such as biographical data and social media, and the consideration of individual differences, such as motivation and values.
12
Q
Week 4,
Applicant Faking Behavior: The Elephant in the Room
Richard L. Griffith, et al. (2015)
A
- The paper explores the phenomenon of applicant faking behavior on personality measures in personnel selection, and argues that different levels of analysis (item, scale, and composite) may reveal different aspects of faking.
- The paper reviews the previous research on faking at the scale level, which is the most common approach, and discusses its advantages and limitations. The paper also examines the validity, reliability, and utility of personality scales in the presence of faking.
- The paper introduces the research on faking at the item level, which is less prevalent but potentially informative, and discusses how item characteristics, response processes, and statistical methods can be used to detect and understand faking at this level.
- The paper proposes the research on faking at the composite level, which is largely unexplored but may have practical implications, and discusses how faking across multiple scales may vary depending on the job context, the ideal profile, and the scoring method.
- The paper concludes with some unresolved issues and future directions for faking research, such as the integration of multiple sources of validity evidence, the modeling of interindividual differences in faking behavior, and the development of effective interventions to reduce faking.
13
Q
Week 4,
PERSONALITY AND ITS
ASSESSMENT IN ORGANIZATIONS:
THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL
DEVELOPMENTS
Frederick L. Oswald and Leaetta M. Hough (2011)
A
- The paper reviews the history and development of personality assessment in organizations, focusing on the theoretical and empirical issues related to the structure, validity, and utility of personality measures.
- The paper discusses various models and frameworks for organizing personality constructs, such as the Big Five, the HEXACO, and the nomological-web clustering approach, and highlights the advantages of using facet-level personality variables for predicting work outcomes.
- The paper summarizes the criterion-related validity evidence for personality measures across different occupational groups and criteria, such as job performance, leadership, teamwork, job satisfaction, and counterproductive work behaviors¹[1].
- The paper examines the mean differences in personality scores between ethnic–cultural, gender, and age subgroups, and their implications for reducing adverse impact in personnel selection²[2]. The paper also explores the phenomenon of test-score faking and its effects on validity and utility of personality measures³[3].
- The paper presents several process models that integrate personality constructs with other psychological variables to explain the mechanisms underlying the personality–performance relationship. The paper also describes some innovative methods for personality assessment, such as forced-choice formats, situational judgment tests, and adaptive testing.
14
Q
Week 4,
Social Media in Employee-Selection-Related
Decisions: A Research Agenda for Uncharted Territory
Philip L. Roth, et al. (2016)
A
- The paper examines the use of social media (SM) information in personnel decision making, such as hiring, promotion, and reassignment.
- The paper proposes a research agenda that addresses the theoretical and empirical gaps in the literature on SM assessments, drawing on various disciplines and perspectives.
- The paper discusses four main topics: (a) the process of SM judgments and the role of incomplete and negative information, (b) the constructs and criteria that SM assessments measure and predict, (c) the subgroup differences and potential adverse impact of SM assessments, and (d) the applicant reactions to SM assessments.
- The paper highlights the challenges and opportunities of using SM assessments in organizations, such as the validity, utility, fairness, and legality of such practices.
- The paper concludes with some unresolved issues and future directions for SM research, such as the integration of multiple sources of validity evidence, the modeling of individual differences in SM behavior, and the development of effective interventions to reduce faking.
15
Q
Week 5,
Executive Selection—What’s
Right … and What’s Wrong
GEORGE P. HOLLENBECK (2009)
A
- The paper reflects on the history and current state of executive selection from an industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology perspective, and identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the field.
- The paper argues that I-O psychology has made significant contributions to the technology and methods of executive selection, but has failed to produce satisfactory results or gain influence in the practice of executive selection.
- The paper suggests that the main problem is that I-O psychology has used the wrong models for executive selection, focusing on behavioral competencies rather than character and competence, and applying psychometric and statistical approaches rather than judgment and decision-making frameworks.
- The paper proposes that I-O psychology should change its mindset and view executive selection as a problem of judgment and decision-making, and explore different solutions for different situations, taking into account the job, the organization, the environment, and the person.
- The paper concludes with some unresolved issues and future directions for executive selection research, such as developing a working definition of character, assessing character in a valid and reliable way, examining how executives make people judgments, and integrating multiple sources of validity evidence.
