Annotated Bibliography Industrial / Organizational Psychology
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Annotated Bibliography Industrial / Organizational Psychology

on

  • 959 views

Annotated bibiliography of journal related to every key aspect of I/O Psychology based on Landy, F.J., & Conte, J.M. (2010). Work in the 21st century: An introduction to industrial and organizational ...

Annotated bibiliography of journal related to every key aspect of I/O Psychology based on Landy, F.J., & Conte, J.M. (2010). Work in the 21st century: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
959
Views on SlideShare
959
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Annotated Bibliography Industrial / Organizational Psychology Annotated Bibliography Industrial / Organizational Psychology Document Transcript

  • V.M.Westerberg ASS1 1 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHYARTICLE 1Goffin, R. D., Rothstein, M. G., Rieder, M. J., Poole, A., Krajewski, H. T., Powell, D. M., Mestdagh, T. (2011). Choosing job-related personality traits: Developing valid personality-oriented job analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(5), 646-651. Retrieved from www.scopus.comThe current study was carried out by a multidisciplinary team of Canadianresearchers and was publicly funded. The aim was to develop a new empiricallytested Personality-Oriented Job Analysis (POJA) after literature research revealedthat only three peer-reviewed POJA articles have been published to date.Goffin et al. (2011) found that Costa et al.’s article (1995) approached personalityrequirements of jobs in a superficial, descriptive manner, and that Sumer et al.’s(2001) research on application of factor analysis methodology was hard to interpret.Although a more relevant article by Raymark et al. (1997) focused on a POJAapproach called Personality-Related Position Requirements Form (PPRF), Goffin etal. (2011) found that it had validity weaknesses which the authors aimed to solve bycarefully developing their construct definitions and by assuming a bidirectionalrelationship between personality traits and job performance and so providing astudy with strong internal validity.Participants in this within-subjects design study were medical students of bothsexes, but no reference is made to diversity issues like participants’ ethnicities,nationalities or creed, relevant to the external validity of the research. Themethodology used was simple and based on fictional job rotations in which allparticipants took part, with performance rated by I/O psychologists. Individualdifferences of participants were controlled for as all incumbents took part in eachrotation. Given the shortness of rotations (six weeks), there was concern aboutparticipants’ performance resembling the “transition” rather than the “maintenance”phase of jobs where performance is maximal and personality-performance relationsare not as strong as during typical performance (Marcus et al., 2007).
  • V.M.Westerberg ASS1 2Goffin et al. (2011) concluded that their findings support their aims and that theirPOJA validational results need comparison with traditional job analysis methods. Itwould be interesting to see how this POJA complements KSAOs analysis and howwell POJA correlates with PPRF and Employee –Self Descriptive Index (ESDI).Like cognitive task analysis (Vincente, 1999), POJA, PPRF and ESDI are newtrends in job analysis and, therefore, an open field for research.Employers and / or I/O Psychologists could use this information as a model,combining traditional job analysis techniques like observation and interviews(especially of critical incidents) with the newer above described techniques to betterfit candidates with positions in the context of rapidly changing workplaces, whichaligns with what Goldstein and Ford (2002) suggested with their competencymodelling of job analysis.
  • V.M.Westerberg ASS1 3ARTICLE 2Zysberg, L. (2012). Hope in personnel selection. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20(1), 98-104. Retrieved from www.scopus.comDr Leehu Zysberg, an I/O Psychology professor and researcher at the Tel HaiCollege in Galilee (Israel), designed this cross-sectional study to find support for hishypothesis based on the works by Cascio (1991) and Dubrin (2004) that hope isassociated with personnel selection process success and that this is mediated bycoping. The author’s sample had the strength of consisting of over one hundredreal-life candidates of both sexes and with similar qualifications applying for a realjob. Candidates filled out a demographic questionnaire, which was followed bySnyder et al.’s Hope Scale (1991), a Hebrew version of Carver, Scheier, andWeintraub’s COPE questionnaire (1989), and randomly administered other tests ofpersonality, general mental ability, personal interviews and a group simulation task.Although Zysberg (2012) used well researched and validated measures whichcertainly enhanced the internal validity of the study, external validity is limited giventhe differential characteristics of the majority Hebrew population in Israel, anindividualist, masculine, low-power distance culture, when compared withindividualist, feminine and/or high power distance cultures in keeping withHofstede’s theory of cultural differences (1984). Aligning with Triandis’ (1995)variation of Hofstede’s theory, the minority Israeli Kibbutz candidates, a collectivisthorizontal culture, could be compared with vertical ones like the other, majority,Israeli candidates, and with the similar Chinese or the Greek cultures for furtherexternal validity purposes.Findings in this study support the author’s hypothesis that hope mediated by anaction/problem-solving coping style influences candidates’ selection outcomes, butonly partially, as a surprising result arose indicating that hope and coping may havetheir own indirect ways of affecting selectors’ decision making, meaning thatpersonnel selection biases and external influences may be confounds not taken intoaccount in this research, warranting further study.
  • V.M.Westerberg ASS1 4Should further research support the key findings of this study, the author suggeststhat hope could be considered for inclusion in personality assessment protocols forpersonnel selection and even for training purposes. Furthermore, how hope mayinfluence candidates’ selection processes could lead to the implementation ofchanges in selection batteries and performance assessments. Issues notconsidered by the author with regard to personnel selection include failure to takeinto account other key stakeholders in staffing decisions, like managers and co-workers. However, as already mentioned, selector bias was a concern of theresearcher’s. Nyfield and Baron’s theory on fairness in staffing decisions (2000)considers Zysberg’s selection methods and includes post-screening techniques likereference checking and actuarial approaches to decision making which, despitebeing commonplace in the context of selection processes, were not taken intoaccount in this study and, therefore, their influence could not be established.Further research building on this very recent, current study should cover thesedeficiencies with the aim to shed light to understanding the factors involved in thedelicate and complex process of personnel selection.
  • V.M.Westerberg ASS1 5ARTICLE 3Yan, M., Peng, K. Z., & Francesco, A. (2011). The differential effects of job design on knowledge workers and manual workers: A quasi- experimental field study in China. Human Resource Management, 50(3), 407-424. doi:10.1002/hrm.20428This innovative, longitudinal, quasi-experimental field study done in China aimed toshow for the first time in published literature that the strong current trend (Bartlett,2007; Hartmann, 2006) among human resource managers and I/O psychologists ofuniversal job enrichment (Patten, 1977) to enhance job satisfaction andperformance applies only to knowledge workers (KW) but not to manual workers(MW), with Taylorism (Taylor, 1947) being the most efficient job design for MW, andthat, therefore, KW and MW should be treated differently with respect to job design.The authors, based on an extensive literature research (Kuipers & Stoker, 2009;Mohr & Zogi, 2006; Kelly, 1982; Patten, 1977; Taylor, 1947) claim that jobenrichment designs involve participation in managerial decisions regarding goalsettings for high performers, with great autonomy, who view challengeaccomplishment as job satisfaction, as is the case of KW. On the other hand, MWwho have limited knowledge and skills, challenging goals represent a burden intheir workload resulting in increased effort, stress and reduced job satisfaction andperformance.Yan, Peng, and Francesco (2011) designed a 3-phase, well-controlled between-groups study with detailed discussion about how internal validity threats wereidentified and held constant, like the maturation threat or the t-test evaluation thatshowed that no significant different were found in sex, age or organizational tenurein the four groups, i.e.: KW and MW in the control and treatment groups. The firstphase established a baseline of enrichment equivalence in the four groups. Jobenrichment was measured using the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) developed byHackman and Oldham (1974). The second, 4-week, phase was task performanceincluding questionnaires of job enrichment (manipulation or independent variable)and satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured using a short version of theMichigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (Seashore, Lawler, Mirvis, &
  • V.M.Westerberg ASS1 6Cammann, 1982). During the third and final phase which lasted six months 10supervisors rated workers performance using an abbreviated form of Van Dyne andLePine’s (1998) task performance scale.The statistical analysis design, a 2x2x2 repeated-measures ANOVA, showedsignificant between-participant Work Type x Condition interaction of satisfaction andperformance scores, revealing positive effects of job enrichment on KW andnegative effects on MW. Constant levels over time for the two variables in thecontrol groups allowed the researchers to reject the “reverse causality” hypothesisthat perceptions of enrichment are the result and not the cause of positive jobsatisfaction and performance (Yan et al., 2011).Although the authors do a good job at showing the relationship worker type-redesign strategy, they failed to take into account worker’s attributes like personalitytype, motivation, and emotion. Similarly, job performance was done using ajudgemental method when an objective, quantitative method like sales volumes oroutput may have offered additional value to the study, which is consistent withMalos’ (1998) theory about performance appraisal procedures: they should beobjective, within control of the ratee, and related to specific and not global functions.However, the Chinese is a collectivist culture, with high power distance, whichexpects group evaluation being done from top-down and therefore Malos’ (1998)Western theory does not apply here completely.The practical implications of Yan et al.’s research for I/O Psychologists is thatTaylorism and job enrichment theories are not mutually exclusive, they just shouldnot be applied universally to all employees, as MW prefer, and benefit the mostfrom, a Taylorist job design, and KW get the most out of an enriched one.
  • V.M.Westerberg ASS1 7ARTICLE 4Onnismaa, J. (2008). Age, experience, and learning on the job: Crossing the boundaries between training and workplace. Journal of Employment Counseling, 45(2), 79-90. Retrieved from www.ebscohost.comThe aim of this case study was to reveal participants’ views about age, experience,tacit knowledge and workplace counselling (Onnismaa, 2008) in the context of anadult engineering apprenticeship programme for employees aged over 40 years inFinland, with the objective of retaining experienced employees, improving theircompetencies and therefore their profitability at a reasonable cost (Onnismaa,2011). This approach is a win-win situation for employees, employers and societyas based on Warr’s (2007) theory of job loss: paid employment is related to positivehealth outcomes of workers and is central to the functioning of societies. Onnismaa(2011) challenges contemporary cultural older-individual objectification trendsstating that age is culturally determined and that in ever-aging societies with anever-increasing life expectancy, it makes sense to keep older, more experiencedemployees doing profitable work at the same time as, they serve as more-knowledgeable others or scaffolds allowing the learning to move along zones ofproximal development (ZPD), using Vygotsky’s (Berk, 2010) socio-cultural learningtheory in the context of older-to-younger adult knowledge transfer.Based on Bandura’s learning theory (Berk, 2010), modelling or imitation ofobserved behaviour in Onnismaa’s study lead to trainees’ skills mastering which inturn enhanced their self-efficacy, confidence and overall performance. Onnismaa’sstudy (2011), however, fails to identify how another key learning theory applied tohis participants, that is, how Skinner’s operant conditioning theory of rewards (Berk,2010).Findings in this case study showed a vertical and horizontal advancement ofexpertise from trainee to specialist, regardless of age, and that the learning processis multidirectional, from expert to trainee, from vertical to horizontal levels, where afavourable environment and culture also play a key role. According to Hofstede’stheory of cultural differences (1984) Finland is a feminine, individualistic, low-powerculture that favours knowledge transmission. External validity issues may arise if
  • V.M.Westerberg ASS1 8the results of this study were considered for application in masculine, collectivist,high-power cultures, like the Chinese, whose nationals are a group of workersbecoming more and more representative in countries like Australia and NewZealand, and whose cultural idiosyncrasy should be considered for practicalpurposes in the context of Human Resource Management and I/O Psychology inthese latter countries, whose indigenous populations make organizational protocolseven more challenging if discrimination of any kind, be it adverse treatment orimpact, is to be avoided.
  • V.M.Westerberg ASS1 9ARTICLE 5Boachie-Mensah, F. O., & Seidu, P. (2012). Employees perception of performance appraisal system: A case study. International Journal of Business & Management, 7(2), 73-88. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v7n2p73Boachie-Mensah and Seidu (2012) are Business professors in Tarodaki PolytechnicSchool in Ghana. The authors set out to study employees’ perceptions ofperformance appraisals (PA) and how to improve acceptance, reduce error ratesand enhance the whole PA system outcomes. The methodology used was adescriptive survey design for data collection from 140 resident academic andadministrative workers. The semi-structured interview schedule used aimed toreduce interviewer bias and increase consistency (Boachie-Mensah & Seidu, 2012).Statistical data analysis was done using SPSS for its reliability.The only demographic information provided about participants in this study is theirage range and education level. Ghana has a high religious mix population, withtraditionalists and Muslims being the majority. In this context, the authors may nothave considered women in their study, as it is “understood” that they do notnormally form part of higher education programmes, especially polytechnic ones.However, they consider the effects of gender in the leader-subordinate relationshipin their study of PA, stating that female managers rate employees lower thanfemale employees without providing a reference for it (Boachie-Mensah & Seidu,2012). This culturally determined and, therefore, possibly unintentionaldiscriminatory behaviour, is in itself a significant flaw of this study, one that, notsurprisingly, is not acknowledged by the authors.Culture clearly influences PA (Hofstede, 1984): 360º evaluations apply to low-powerdistance cultures, masculine cultures emphasize achievement not relationships,and low uncertainty tolerance cultures are characterized by harsher evaluations, asis the case here. In this context, the authors claim that PA is negatively perceivedby rates, as it is viewed as subjective, error-prone (specifically to similarity and haloeffect biases), non-participative and beyond the ratees’ control (Boachie-Mensah &Seidu, 2012). However, PA is viewed as important by both raters and rates, and theresearchers make recommendations to improve the system that are standard
  • V.M.Westerberg ASS1 10procedure in developed countries, like objectivity, standardization of the PA toolsand process, formal communication of PA date and PA feedback, allow ratees toreview and comment PA tools and outcomes, include multiple raters handlingmultiple sources of information, and properly train raters. Among thoseconsiderations are not systems to detect and avoid discrimination, discriminationunderstood not as differentiation but as segregation.This otherwise commendable and well-written work by Boachie-Mensah and Seidu(2012) raises concerns about the equality gap between developed andunderdeveloped countries, the pervasive effects of culture and tradition in thirdworld countries and the implications of all those factors in the Human ResourceManagement and I/O Psychology context. Our Western theories of PA, like those ofRotundo and Sackett ‘s (2004), Harvey’s (1991), or Landy and Farr’s (1980), simplydo not apply to all cultures.
  • V.M.Westerberg ASS1 11REFERENCE LISTBartlett, A. L. B. (2007). Job characteristics and job design in table-service restaurants. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 6(1), 23– 36.Berk, L.E. (2010). Exploring lifespan development. (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.Boachie-Mensah, F. O., & Seidu, P. (2012). Employees perception of performance appraisal system: A case study. International Journal of Business & Management, 7(2), 73-88. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v7n2p73Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267–283.Cascio, W. (1991). Applied psychology in personnel selection. New York, NY: Prentice-Hall.Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Kay, G. G. (1995). Persons, places, and personality: Career assessment using the revised NEO personality inventory. Journal of Career Assessment, 3, 123–139.Dubrin, A. J. (2004). Human relationships for career and personal success. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Goffin, R. D., Rothstein, M. G., Rieder, M. J., Poole, A., Krajewski, H. T., Powell, D. M., Mestdagh, T. (2011). Choosing job-related personality traits: Developing valid personality-oriented job analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(5), 646-651. Retrieved from www.scopus.comGoldstein, I.L., & Ford, J.K. (2002). Training in organizations: Needs assessment, development, and evaluation (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
  • V.M.Westerberg ASS1 12Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1974). The Job Diagnostic Survey: An instrument for the diagnosis of jobs and the evaluation of job redesign projects. New Haven, CT: Yale University, Department of Administrative Sciences.Hartmann, A. (2006). The role of organizational culture in motivating innovative behaviour in construction firms. Construction Innovation, 6(3), 159–172.Harvey, R.J. (1991). Job analysis. In M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol.1, pp. 71- 163). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist PressHofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work- related values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Kelly, J. E. (1982). Scientific management, job redesign and work performance. London, England: Academic Press.Kuipers, B. S., & Stoker, J. I. (2009). Development and performance of self- managing work teams: A theoretical and empirical examination. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(2), 399–419.Landy, F.J., & Farr, J.L. (1980). Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87, pp. 72-107.Malos, S.B. (1998). Current legal issues in performance appraisal. In J.W. Smither (Ed.), Performance appraisal: State of the art in practice (pp. 49-90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey – Bass.Marcus, B., Goffin, R. D., Johnston, N. G., & Rothstein, M. G. (2007). Personality and cognitive ability as predictors of typical and maximum managerial performance. Human Performance, 20, 275–285.Mohr, R., & Zoghi, C. (2006). Is job enrichment really enriching? Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
  • V.M.Westerberg ASS1 13Nyfield, G., & Baron, H. (2000). Cultural context in adapting selection practices across borders. In J. Kehoe (ed.). Managing selection in changing organizations: Human resource strategies (pp. 242-268). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Onnismaa, J. (2008). Age, experience, and learning on the job: Crossing the boundaries between training and workplace. Journal of Employment Counseling, 45(2), 79-90. Retrieved from www.ebscohost.comPatten, T. H., Jr. (1977). Job evaluation and job enlargement: A collision course? Human Resource Management, 16(4), 2–8.Raymark, P. H., Schmit, M. J., & Guion, R. M. (1997). Identifying potentially useful personality constructs for employee selection. Personnel Psychology, 50, 723–736.Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P.R. (2004). Specific versus general skills and abilities: A job-level examination of relationships with wage. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 127-148.Seashore, S. E., Lawler, E. E., Mirvis, P., & Cammann, C. (1982). Observing and measuring organizational change: A guide to field practice. New York, NY: Wiley.Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S. T., Yoshinobu, L., Gibb, J., Langelle, C., & Harney, P. (1991). The will and the ways: Development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 570–585.Sumer, H. C., Sumer, N., Demirutku, K., & Cifci, O. S. (2001). Using a personality oriented job analysis to identify attributes to be assessed in officer selection. Military Psychology, 13, 129–146.Taylor, F. W. (1947). The principles of scientific management. New York, NY: Harper and Brothers.Triandis, H.C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.
  • V.M.Westerberg ASS1 14Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108–119.Vincente, K. (1999). Cognitive work analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Yan, M., Peng, K. Z., & Francesco, A. (2011). The differential effects of job design on knowledge workers and manual workers: A quasi-experimental field study in China. Human Resource Management, 50(3), 407-424. doi:10.1002/hrm.20428Warr, P.B. (2007). Work, happiness, and happiness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Zysberg, L. (2012). Hope in personnel selection. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20(1), 98-104. Retrieved from www.scopus.com