Organizational Psychology

Later trends: Human Relations Theory

*Cognitive Psychology movement* -- Intelligence testing -- Used to be just behavior and motivation * Civil RIghts Act of 1964* -- Slowed use of cognitive assessments -- BUT sparked *interest in alternative predictors of job performance* 00 Equal treatment ⇒ Focus has changed - there is a large collection of topics

Motivation at Work - Theories

*Evolutions of intrinsic vs. extrinsic* • McGregor's theory X + Y - are workers motivated to do their best? • *Goal-setting* (p.497) -- Locke & Latham's findings: specific (must be specified), challenging goals are best (can't be impossible ⇒ otherwise won't be motivating -- Juggling multiple goals yet to be understood • *Expectancy theories* ⇒ goal must seem attainable - what you perceive matters

Main Model of Job Performance

*John Campbell's Model* • 3 determinants of 8 dimensions - First 3 are "task" performance vs. contextual/citizenship •*Job specific task proficiency*, *demonstrating effort*,* maintaining personal discipline* ⇒ common to all jobs • How to get people to do these: *Three causes of performance* --> *Declarative knowledge*, *procedural knowledge*, and *motivation* ⇒ *determine why people perform differently*

Pros & Cons of 'g' / GMA testing

*Pros* • Intelligence predicts important outcomes, not just in work = better ability to manipulat/ understand the world around you • Actually predicts big, real-world outcomes • Allows for standardized comparisons • Merit-based decisions • Self-understanding- good to know you abilities • Identify hidden skills • Aid for working with developmental disabilities *Cons* • Predictions overextended • Limits exploration of new constructs • Distracts from focus on underlying processes • Stifles creativity • Misused if assume intelligence is completely fixed • Self-fulfilling prophecy as social labeling → stereotyping • Ethnic differences

McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y

*Theory X*: theory developed to describe managers who believe subordinates must be *controlled to meet organizational ends* (likely would use punishment and reward was methods of control) *Theory Y*: theory developed to describe managers who believe subordinates are motivated to *meet goals in the absence of organizational controls* Contrasts the impersonal propositions of classical organizational theory

Approaches

*Typology* • Individual are assigned to a specific personality category - a Type • Ex. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) --> Has opposing categories that you have to choose → combine to form one overall type ⇒ unreliable - code can change *Dimensional* ⇒ better • Individual are composed of different facets, with each one being "more" or "less" → there are a number of continuums - fall somewhere on each • 1) Positive or Negative Affectivity→ people can very • 2) *Big Five personality model* -- Openness to experience -- Conscientiousness - hardworking/rules -- Extraversion -- Agreeableness -- Neuroticism (or Emotional Stability) ⇒ Empirically derived theory → results broke down into the five main categories Don't have clear definitions - can just use some of the words linked • 3) Raymond Cattell's 16 PF - - looked at individual differences across psychological variables

Motivation at Work - more modern theories:

*• Job Design - Job characteristics theory (JCT)* - (Hackman & Oldham) -- Motivation stems from meaningful job tasks and sense of connections to larger organizational goals → focuses on environment rather than person *• Personality* → what are people generally like - some are more motivated than others -- *Self-regulation*: goal- setting and feedback loop → do you regulate and moderate yourself - are you doing what's necessary to achieve goal -- **Goal orientation *• Person x Situation Interaction & Fit* -- Combination of you and your environment

Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Motivation

*•Intrinsic* - personal satisfaction gained from performing a behavior - inherently satisfying *•Extrinsic* - external rewards gained from performing a behavior - i.e. money, recognition → can be linked * Tasks may produce both types.. -- Ex. Studying → learning and grades (intrinsic/extrinsic) -- Ex. working → pride and money ⇒ Overjustification Effect looks at how extrinsic motivation can undermine intrinsic motivation

Relevant concepts: Classical theories

*•Operant conditioning/ reinforcement* (Skinner) - more important = pay / praise and recognition = reinforce behaviors *•Maslow's hierarchy* / Herzberg's 2 Factors - idea that we all have needs but they are arranged in a hierarchy - basic needs to more desireable needs (are we successful) - Herzberg = Maslow's hierarchy doesn't really explain much - progression in stages doesn't make sense → we all focus on different kinds of needs that don't really apply to a hierarchy *•Locus of control* - internal or external locus - perspective on life - used to explain success or failure - what doe you credit/blame - others or yourself - can predict various behaviors = theory can be applied in a variety of ways *•Bandura's social cognitive theory* ~ self-efficacy - can be used in many ways → concept about motivation and confidence level = how confident you are with a given task - varies across tasks

Motivational Theories -- Classic Approaches Victor Vroom's VIE Theory

*•Valence* → how much do I care about the rewards? (how enticing) - may not want money - must be driven towards reward *•Expectancy* → Probability judgement → how likely are you to succeed - if not likely won't be motivated *•Instrumentality* → Is performing this behavior (instrumental) a mechanism to get the reward? → is the behavior (or immediate reward) a means to some other desired outcome? ⇒ Making a probability judgement internally → assumes that people are intentional in their behavior ⇒ Very cognitive → ignored non-cognitive elements such as personality and emotion • VIE theory in practice • Implications --> Help employees see connections between rewards and behaviors you want them to perform → instrumentality must be clear --> Helps to explain "charismatic" or "inspirational" approaches to leadership

Tacit Knowledge Test /Practical knowledge

- My not be able to explain, but can perform • Claims • Mostly procedural knowledge • General skills distinct from g • Projects outcomes as well or better than g *Research Evidence within OP* • Supporting data problematic -- Uses "intelligence" samples; range-restricted data cannot show g matters, even if it does -- Measures unreliable -- Practical intelligence linked to inappropriate outcomes → (e/g/ popularity, reputation of job) disconnected - these are irrelevant → should have tested with more relative things •* Tacit Knowledge Tests* suspiciously similar to *Situational Judgement Tests* used in OP -- SJTs measures combinations of more basic constructs including 'g' ⇒ test already exists Sternberg would agree that conclusions about SJTs and organizational psychology findings apply to his Tacit Knowledge test

Assessments of Individual differences

- Resumes, job applications, academic record - Cognitive ability tests - Psychomotor & physical abilities - Personality tests - Interviews - Situational judgement tests → task knowledge tests --- real-world knowledge - Biographical data (biodata) - Work samples → relevant tasks - Integrity tests - Drug/alcohol tests -Graphology → analysis of handwriting

2 aspects of job performance

- Task & Contextual Performance • *Task performance* = technical tasks for the transformation of inputs to outputs (goods or services) • *Contextual performance* (now: or Organizational Citizenship Behavior- OCBs) = behaviors contributing to the environment in which task performance occurs: - *Prosocial* - helping others, volunteering - *Job dedication* - working hard, following rules, promoting organization to outsiders ⇒ things that support the organization's effectiveness ⇒ problem = promotion and the extra burden it may place on employees • ⇒ *aren't equally important* → must have task performance or the organization won't be functioning *Promoting OCBs* • Reward behaviors → paying them off isn't great = [WHAT IS THAT BIAS??]] -- may possibly remove the intrinsic values of these employees [NOT NECESSARILY THOUGH] ⇒ Brings intention of these behaviors into question → doing it because they want to help or because they want the money → changes the way the people are motivated - Could require it as part of the job ⇒ increases the behaviors which is important for the job → intention doesn't really matter - not part of the definition of performance ⇒ problem = it can add an additional burden → must do it on top of other i Modeling from manager *Beyond Job Performance* • *Organizational Citizenship behavior* - OBCs - Same as contextual performance - Do intentions matter? - not really - How do we promote? Should we? • *Counterproductive work behavior* - CWB - Interpersonal vs organizational deviance → aimed at people or at the job - Examples: gossip, theft, tardiness, property damage, harassment, taking excessive breaks, sabotage, fighting, substance abuse, etc. *⇒ various ways to look at performance*

Early applied psychologists *Hugo Munsterberg*

- father of I/O *⇒ Applied Psychology to Work* • Dabbled in "clinical" psychology - Applied psychology to work • Looked at how psychology can be applied to everyday life • Began forensic work • *Early selection and performance tests for training* -- Selection, performance, and sales

Assessments - what is it?

- often linked to selection • Assessment = process of measuring and then using the result to make a value-based judgement = has meaning • Within personnel selection, assessment is a key part of the hiring ("selection") process • Measure all relevant qualities about a person for predicting organizational outcomes - do the people you bring in create the best outcomes • ⇒ must measure people properly

Hobbes

- philosopher = people are selfish b/c life is hard ⇒ Organizations = social order - Social contract with society & gov → provided order and safety at the costos certain freedoms - Order created by conflict and cooperation ⇒ this is why we have organizations

Morgan

- tool or instrument, group that coordinates efforts to achieve a common goal Purpose = generally about manufacturing (producing) or technology - making something for someone → all have a common goal

Intelligence tests

- used in army → Army Alpha • Originally developed to determine ability of French students • Army testing ⇒ first use in work → included written and visual questions

Motivation defined

- various components • Concerns conditions for *variation* in -- Form, intensity/quality, duration (persistence) & direction (of behavior) • Knowing is not enough → must put in effort

Most basic theory

= (Ability x motivation) - situational constraints = Performance --> [How good you are x how motivated you are] - [situational factors] = performance - Knowing is important, but must also apply ⇒ motivation and ability interact to produce capabilities

Competencies

= are *sets* of performance behaviors - May or may not be connected to a specific job - general types of behavior involved - Often used to determine which qualities/skills workers should have in general for an organization (vs. specific hob)

Cognitive Abilities definition

Ability to reason, plan, solve problems, comprehend complex ideas, & learn from experiences

Subject matter expert (SME)

Job incumbents who can explain what a job involves and what it takes to perform successfully → have a lot of knowledge about the job

Personality vs. intelligence

One can has ethnic problems the other doesn't

Strategies for achieving success in an industry ⇒

Organizations tend to use same strategies to solve problems, creating four types of organizations: *•Defender* → Uses stability -- exercise caution - stability from maximum efficiency → downsides = very limited so might miss opportunities --> EX: Top manager maintains structure and technology → dominates market, but narrow and develops few products ⇒ exercises caution → focus en engineering to maximize efficiency -->Defenders exercise caution *•Prospector* - constantly innovating - innovation and risk via flexibility → challenge is that there are huge gambols → do this by decentralizing their processes - not highly structured/controlled → Usually a dynamic environment ⇒ identify and explore new product areas - less effort in improving efficiency in the process ⇒ risky *•Analyzer* - balance of the first too → little more cautious -(blend of Defend. and Prospect.) → more cautious to move into new markets - only when success seems likely → carries the advantage and disadvantage of both → balance of efficiency and innovation *•Reactor* → failure to adapt because poor strategy and choice of technology without flexibility or consistency → lack strategy Inconsistency in designing or selecting a strategy Respond to changes too late WHY: management nt clear about goals → not vision; part of the organization is not "aligned"/working together ⇒ Examples of companies today to demonstrate these strategies - Apple → Prospector - especially under Steve Jobs - Nintendo → Analyzer - KFC → Analyzer - Fast food → good examples of analyzers - Toothpaste - Defender (sort of) ⇒ Highlights the idea that strategy leads to a specific organization ⇒ industries can be doing a number of these

Motivational Theories -- Classic Approaches *Internal Mechanical Theory: Maslow's Need Theory*

Person as machine = *motivation is a largely unconscious process* - individual responds to internal conditions (needs or drives) or external stimuli (rewards) in a reflexive or automatic way • Proposed that all humans have a basic set of needs and that these needs express themselves over the lifespan of the individual as internal "pushes" or drives. • Needs are organized in a hierarchy → physical needs are the lowest and self-actualization needs are the highest • Five basic needs -- Physiological needs - basic needs or drives and are satisfied by such things as food, water, and sleep -- Security needs - need an individual has to produce a secure environment - one free of threats to continued existence -- Love or social needs - needs associated with interpersonal factors - refer to an individual's desire to be accepted by others -- Esteem needs - needs associated with being respected for accomplishments or capacities -- Self-actualization needs - needs refer to the desire on the part of an individual to develop their capacities to the fullest • ⇒ individuals are motivated to fill higher needs when their lower needs are met • Person-as-machine fits this model → behavior of the individual to fulfil their needs is unconscious and automatic → some influence on modern organizations in the adoption of a benefit/rewards plan • Variation of Maslow's Theory *Two-Factor theory* - Herzberg → 2 basic needs, not five → independent of each other rather than arranged in a hierarchy: Hygiene needs and motivator needs -- Hygiene needs - lower-level needs - meeting these needs would eliminate dissatisfaction but would not result in motivated behavior or a state of positive satisfaction -- Motivator needs - higher-level needs - meeting such needs resulted in the expenditure of effort as well as satisfaction ⇒ neither of these theories receive much attention today

Phases of Staffing: (Snow & Shell)

Recruitment Selection Appraisal Promotion Deselection → then back to recruitment

A job

a set of responsibilities that must be fulfilled by individuals for organizations to accomplish goals • "Positions" are specific job openings filled by particular individuals

Compensatory Selection

• "Comprehensive model" → regression equations • Take all the information to *form a predictive equations* → given what info you have, know their general ability = predict their performance ⇒ adds everything up → *can compensate poor skills with strong ones = compensatory = some skills can compensate for others*

Intelligence vs. Cognitive Abilities

• "Intelligence is whatever intelligence tests measure" -- Terms links to historical /political trends • *Intelligence = g ~ general mental ability but defined more clearly* -- Cognitive abilities include an array of lower order processes

Work context: *Job Characteristics Theory (JCT) *

• (Hackman & Oldman) - model of how "enriching" job features lead to psychological experiences of: - Happiness doesn't predict efficiency, but it might keep them from quitting - Perceived work as meaningful & worthwhile - Feeling responsible for work outcomes - Using feedback to understand quality of performance & gain self-efficacy • *Enriching features:* -- *Skill variety* required to do job tasks → varied -- *Task identity* -- completion of whole vs. part - lets them appreciate meaning of their work → be able to connect their work to the bigger project -- *Task significance* - is the job important -- *Autonomy* - how much choice do you giace of scheduling and procedures -- *Feedback* (directly from task) • *Want to maximize these aspects* • If can maximize these can *produce psychological mechanisms* that *makes the job more meaningful* -- Experience *meaningfulness* of the work (1-3 → skill variety, task identity, task significance -- Experience *responsibility* for outcomes of the work ( → autonomy) -- *Knowledge* of the actual results of the work activity ( → feedback) ⇒ All lead to high internal motivation, high quality of work performance, high satisfaction with the work, and low absenteeism and turnover • Research supported *meaningfulness* and a *mediator* (connecting mechanism) - between job characteristics and outcomes: - Work motivation - Job satisfaction - Satisfaction with developmental opportunities. ⇒ mediates the effect of Skill variety on high internal motivation • When possible, people may do *job crafting to enhance fit*

Debate of "g"

• *Against* → Ignores socio factors that contribute to job performance -- Importance of conscientiousness → most important difference in individuals - high predictive ability for job performance -- tacit knowledge predicts performance moderately will -- Fam advantage + other factors\ -- highly dependent on academically learned content -- in some studies 'g' is seen to predict less than the criterion variable variance • *For* -- With same experience -- higher g = more success -- G influences ability to acquire job knowledge

Practical Intelligence → incorporated into theories Robert Sternberg's Triarchic Theory of Intelligence

• *Analytical* - book smarts • *Creative* • *Practical* - street smarts

Reasons to measure performance

• *Assess & improve organizational effectiveness* → need to understand people's qualities so their performance can be improved • *Validation selection processes* -- Promotions -- Layoffs ⇒ measuring performance can determine if interviews are accurately reflecting ability • Help employees develop → lets employees know how they are doing • Fair compensation → should they be getting more? Less?

Range Restriction and Validity

• *Criterion related validity = does assessment predict performance* → determine with correlations -- Have problem when actually look at data: -- EX: SAT scores → never get performance results from the low-scorer = never accepted ⇒ make correlations look small due to missing data while they are actually quite large *⇒ There are certain things that you want to select for * • Some think that training is sufficient, but some skills can't be training (according to some)

Types of performance measurement

• *Global rating* → rate their overall ability • *Forced choice item* → not rating on a scale, but must choose a response → can't be good at everything, but this isn't always accurate • *For I/O have 2 scales:* -- *OBS → observed behavior scale/ behavior checklist* -- *Or Sample Checklist* • By contrast to OBS → can use *behaviorally anchored rating scale* --> Numbered scale with descriptions for the typical behavior applying to each rating → standardized ratings, but a lot to create • *Graphic Rating scale* Must relate to behavior → rating based on faces

Early applied psychologists *Frederick Taylor*

• *Scientific Management* : time-and-motion studies -- Data driven decisions -- trial-&-error more than theory

Tests - Processes/scoring

• *Speed v. power* → timing based (limited) vs. what are you capable of • *Group v. individual* → test as individual or a group • *Paper vs other* (physical, computer, etc.) → ways to execute tests • *Scoring* - Norm vs. Criterion-referenced approaches • When deciding who is doing better - two different ways to look: -- •* Norm referenced approach* : how are you compared to the average → compared to other people → scores have no inherent meaning - just relative to others → i.e. IQ -- •*Criterion-referenced test* → have objective indicators in the real world linked to different scores → difficult to design → people score a 4 can do X, but people scoring 2 can't → i.e. driving test ⇒ Most tests in psych are norm referenced

Clinical vs Statistical/Actuarial

• *Strict formulas* - work better - Actuaries from insurance agents → actually use equations to predict performance level = better - Clinical approaches usually results in biased hiring decisions → using own intuitions • The *best strategy* is to use a formula and have experts make exceptions occasionally

Purposes and Uses of Job Analyses

• ANYTHING psychological in the workplace involves employees • Employees are hired to perform jobs • To understand psychological events in organizations, everything depends on information collected from job analysis

Human Relations Theory/Movement

• Adds a personal/human element to the study of organizations: considers the interrelationship between an organization's requirements and the characteristics of its members - Emotional world of the worker - Job satisfaction and other attitudes - Theories of motivation (K. Lewin)

Job Analysis: Components

• An analysis of a job, how do we understand, analyze, and explain it •*Objectives* -- Tasks - what does it take -- Skill requirements: KSAOs (knowledge, Skills, Abilities and Other) or "individual differences" -- Context in which these occur •*Source information* -- Ask Subject matter experts (SMEs) Electronic performance monitoring *JA Methods:* - Data collection techniques - Observation - ask Qs and observe - Interviews - can ask what the job is like in an interview - Cognitive task analysis → talk through their process - Work diaries - *Critical incidents* → not just random tasks -- if did them well would show that they are a good employee - Surveys *Cognitive Analysis*: Think-aloud procedure Say whatever is on their minds Don't hold back guesses, suppositions, or wild ideas, etc. Hard to have accuracy - takes some practice ⇒ look at what they are attending to

Applied research: Overjustification effect? - Luthans, Paul, & Baker (1981)

• Applied research: Overjustification effect? - Luthans, Paul, & Baker (1981) • Took Overjustification effect and applied it to real world • *Sample*: sales personnel from 16 department stores • *Design* - 8 stores offered time off & cash bonuses to increase 3 performance behaviors -- Respond to customers within 5 sec -- Keep shelves stocked to 70% -- Remain within 3 years of assigned position • Control vs. experimental groups • Pre- and Post-outcome measures -- Measures behaviors before the "start" --> Baseline data -- Measure behaviors at the start (pretest) -- Measure behavior after intervention (posttest) •*Results* - sets of 3 behaviors over 3 months • Baseline: 3 fluctuate together • With intervention → control stayed steady, but experimental group changed • If Overjustification Effect applies → removal of reward should lead to a drop below baseline • *→ Removal of rewards → behavior stayed pretty high = offering external rewards doesn't harm intrinsic motivation → Contradicts Overjustification Effect* → Is the Overjustification Effect not real, or does it just not apply to the real world -- Sustained effect - may have learned that they are capable or more than they thought → may link to recognition praise like in the Hawthorne studies ⇒ lots of alternative explanations → but don't have to worry about OE -- Similar results with behaviors they wanted to decrease • *Luthans et al. Interpretations* -- Supplementary rewards connected to improved performance (less nagging) -- Adults used rewards / praise acknowledge to learn about good performance; feedback for self-regulation

Data-based indicators of performance

• Basic records (e.g. sales record) • Electronic performance monitoring (of job task behavior) -- Not how well they do, but feedback on whether they are actually doing the task correctly • Tests & simulations: -- Walk-through tests -- Work sample ⇒ show what they do on the job

History of Organizational Psychology (I-O)

• Before I/O -- Plato - some people are better suited for certain jobs -- Chinese civil services exams 206 BC • Late 1800s -- C. Darwin - evolution & (later..) heredity -- F. Galton - intelligence and eugenics -- W. Wundt - 1st laboratory -- J.M Cattell - highlighted individual differences ⇒ Birth of psychology = Wundt and Cattell

Early applied psychologists *Walter Dell Scott*

• Brought psychology into advertising • Placement for soldiers → Army Alpha and Beta tests for soldier placement ⇒ got psych into the gov

Personality

• Characteristics that reflect an *enduring* pattern of behavior -- General tendencies -- Stable over long periods of time, but not necessarily innate -- Behaviors, in turn, indicate motivational tendencies --> Lots going on

Grades & Academic Records

• Completion of one year of college seems to be a rough proxy for general mental ability → helps to understand the worker • Letters of recommendation? -- Little research, behavior because of little variance → always positive

Action Theory (Rubicon theory)

• Considers role of intention and motivated behavior ⇒ Theory that includes broad consideration of the role of intention in motivated behavior as well as the connection between intention and action •*4 consecutive action phases in goal pursuit* • 1) Predecisional - examining one's desires in order to determine which desire is the strongest and most feasible to attain • 2) Postdecisional - Planning and developing strategies for successful action • 3) Actional - Actually expending effort to achieve the desired outcome • 4) Evaluative - comparing what was achieved with what was desired ⇒ intentions are particularly important for overcoming obstacles arising in phases 1 and 2 ⇒ people are *more likely to accomplish goals when both goal intention and implementation intentions are present* → implementation intentions help us to articulate when, where, and how we intend to achieve our goals An *action* has two elements: action process and action structure • *Action process* - process that starts with a goal, proceeds to a consideration of events that may occur in the future, and then progresses to the development of several alternative plans, the selection of a plan, the execution and monitoring of the chosen plan, and the processing of information resulting from the execution of the plan. The last step, feedback, then influences goal development once again • *Action structure* - structure that includes the notion that 1) observable action is the result of a number of prior events and plans, hierarchically arranged and, 2) the feedback and resulting regulation of actions occur at different levels ⇒ more concerned with action than motivation

Limitations of Classic Theories

• Constrained in 2 major ways: = *•Assumed one best configuration for an organization• * --> Emphasized structure more than process* = *•Assumed only organizations affect employees vs. mutual influence* - theory that assumes that there is one best configuration for an organization, regardless of its circumstances: *places a premium on control of individual behavior by the organization*

Selection

• Decision who to hire based on assessments predicting a person's future job performance level • Various approaches to evaluate assessment results -- *Top-down selection is most common* → rank everyone and then work down -- But, maybe *screen-out/screen in* → before picking best candidate, eliminate everyone who isn't qualified

Job Performance

• Definition: behaviors intended to help accomplish organizational goals → *focus on behaviors* • - May be required of the job or "extra-role" behaviors, but still discretionary → no one can force you to do it ⇒ it is under your control = thus there are differences in performance • - May be individual or other level (e.g team, department → not everyone contributes to the same degree

Application Profiling

• Difficult to juggle results from multiple assessments to make an overall decision: hire or reject • Maybe certain characteristics fit together and their combination enable high performance - EX. NFL players → profiles change depending on the position ⇒ look for if an interviewee fits the common profile for the position

Basic vs Applied Research:

• Do these *basic research finding* apply in the *real world?* -- How well does research apply -- Well, it was a field experiment, but.. •*Replication* is critical! -- Same effects in more complex, dynamic environments? -- Possible to control situations enough for replications? Is it ethical? • *From Lab to Workplace* •*Generalizability* -- Effects with different populations/ setting? • Relative *importance*? • Were the lab effects large enought to matter, given other influences on outcomes? -- Check statistical effect size -- Ex. stereotype effects ---> effect is small

Selection Decisions & Prediction Errors

• Either right or wrong • What happened - what we predicted • *True positive* - the one we want • *False positive* - the duds • *False negative* - the ones we should have gotten or kept, - underappreciated • *True negative* - the ones that were rightly rejected → some time difficult to know - requires research

Parallel Rise of HR Overlaps with psych DeNisi et al., 2014 - Research and practice in HRM: A historical perspective

• Field began in 20th century • Early on = close tie between research and practice → the diverged = worry that practice no longer reflects/follows research • Originated as Personnel Department dedicated to improving worker relations → response to the threat of unionization • *Hawthorne Studies* → resulted in the HR movement ⇒ argues that employee attitudes were related to productivity • Civil Rights Act - 1964 - led to requirement of trained professionals in the Personnel department to make sure they obeyed the law while still functioning profitably •Became HR when employees became viewed as valuable resources to companies rather than costs → became more strategic partners • HR research began in organizations = research and practice were perfectly aligned • Many studies looked at ways to select employees → many authors were practicing managers or academics with close ties to management consulting • 1959 → 2 reports criticising business schools for teaching it like a trade - for relying of field experience rather than theory • 1970s research began to move away from HR practice → business research became increasingly theory-driven → schools brought in economic and psychology professor versed in theory but with little practical knowledge • Division suggested to result from factors such as: research topics chosen, way journal articles were written, inability of scholars to translate their work into practical terms, failure of academics to understand the real needs of practitioners, etc. → need of Business school to gain legitimacy, requirements for tenure, etc. • Corporations and managers also have issues of legitimacy → so focus more on "legitimate" practice used by others rather than looking at research → Adopt new practices when they become "fashionable," legitimate and popular enough for Board members to believe they are effective • Micro-Level forces: legal concerns with some practices, implementation takes time, implementation costs money, unclear implications for the bottom line

Practical Intelligence → incorporated into theories *Raymond B Cattell's Theory

• Fluid intelligence (Gf) -- Understand situations & problem-solve • Crystallized intelligence (Gc) -- Use knowledge skills, & experiences

Hawthorne Effect

• From BusinessWeek.com: workers in Western Electric's Howthorne Works plant performed better when lighting and other workers conditions are tinkered with, regardless of what the change is -- Researchers realized that the workers are simply responding positively to attention from managers ⇒ NOT TRUE • What really happened: -- All textbooks mention illumination & some mention rest breaks, but most ignore the nine other factors -- Productive did not always increase, including in illumination studies -- Studies occurred over years... not novelty effects -- Pay incentives often combined with other factors → explains increased productivity .. not magic!

*Validity Findings [KNOW THESE]*

• Hunter & Schmidt's Meta-analysis • *Cognitive ability* is useful on all jobs - .5 for complex jobs - .2 for less complex jobs → statistically is the best predictor • *Single best predictor* of performance, BUT imperfect predictor • Barrick & Mount - *Personality traits* → not highly indicative of being a good worker --> Conscientiousness somewhat good for many professions but otherwise only Extraversion is somewhat predictive • *Why Personality Matters* • Managers care -- May weigh it as much as cognitive ability during hiring • Predicts general & specific aspects of job performance -- What you will vs can do (cognitive) • Smaller ethnic differences → balance it with cognitive abilities

Phases of Training (refer to text)

• If consultant hired for company - train to do better • 1) *Needs Assessment at multiple levels* ⇒ what is the real problem → training program must reflect real problem = can't have generic program, but there often is one • 2) *Training Objectives* (ie. specific goals for the training) = should be linked to assessment results • 3) *Training program / Instructional design* - applying training • 4) *Evaluation of training program* - Immediate & eventual real-world outcomes ⇒ did the organization improve = Most important

Common Themes in Modern Approaches

• Intention plays a key role in motivated behavior → most common form of that intention is a goal • Concept of feedback is critical • Includes some element of person-as-scientist - must gather and analyze information • Include some concept of self-assessment • There will be some non-cognitive element in the "ultimate" motivation theory → may be personality or values

What does an overall rating mean?

• It's often unclear what is being measured •*Breakdown of Performance Components used in ratings - Rotundo & Sackett (2002)* • Managers from a variety of industries -- Accounting, senior administration assistant, machine production, nursing *Policy capturing* methodology - People rate a set of profiles that are varied along key dimensions: task, citizenship, & counterproductive - *Analyze tendencies in ratings* - patterns in the way they supervisors make decisions • *Results* - Overall performance ratings reflected some of all of the profiles - Cluster analysis - managers ratings fell into 3 types of schemes - *Task dominant*: machine, nurse - *Counterproductive dominant*: administrative, assistant, machine prod. Nursing - *Task & counterproductive balance*: acct. Retail ⇒ *no one cared primarily about citizenship in their evaluations*

Rating Sources // Feedback

• Job performance can be evaluated by different people, not just a direct supervisor -- Supervisors (direct & indirect) • Other sources - Peers - Personnel in other departments - Suppliers - External customers, - Etc. → problems are inherent in each *360º Feedback* = everybody you have to work with has input on performance • *Pros and cons* - Not everyone can provide accurate information about performance = good at some and not others → some stuff they just don't observe • *Possible limitations* - Can everyone rate everything accurately? --> Do they observe - Practical limitations --> Need anonymity /confidentiality --> Need many raters for proper analysis --> Need to process mixed messages & overwhelming amount of feedback • *Feedback on 360º effectiveness* - Very popular, but surprisingly --> Companies using multi-rater systems have lower shareholder value --> ⅓ companies had substantial performance declines with feedback programs --> Upward feedback helped just 50% employees --> Meta-analysis of 26 longitudinal studies - small grains after 360º •*When should you use it* - Use it intelligently - if manager is best source, use that - if customer is best use that..

Supervisory Ratings

• Most common evaluation is a single, overall performance rating made by a supervisor - Ex. 1= very poor .. 10 = Excellent - Primary Advantages: easy to use, holistic & simple, enables comparisons of employees .. but valid? • Can be primarily objective or subjective - Tend to be weakly related r = ~.3 -Therefore, usually best to use both

Motivation

• Motivation is important in I/O because everyone has different skills and intelligence, but they can change their motivation -- Want people to go to work feeling like the they can accomplish something

Obstacles to Accuracy of Job analyses

• Need to try to figure out what the job requires • SMEs might give you conflicting information -- sometimes is an issue of reliability •*Some issues:* - Disagreement about tasks and their importance - Carelessness - bias/distortion for self-serving response - like doing the task so think its important - General ability to make good judgments- people don't realize certain things about their jobs • *SMEs biases* (Conte et al. 2005) - 365 travel agents - Literature & focus groups→ list of 77 job tasks --> Researchers divided high and low discretion tasks - Agents rated frequency and importance of their own tasks • Correlated with survey of attitudes - Satisfaction - Commitment - Job involvement • *Results* - Task *importance* was somewhat correlated with satisfaction, commitment, and involvement - *Frequency* correlated with satisfaction ⇒ shows that there may be some biases going on • *SME's job satisfaction affective ratings of task importance* -- High discretion task vs. low discretions ⇒ on the job choosing to do things that you like • *Intentional distortion by SMEs?* - Clerks - Job analysis information rated by clerks (SMEs) - Rated 73 specific tasks and abilities from 12 competency areas - Survey items --> Ask if task is part of the job --> Also added in fake job tasks that they had to rate as important to their jobs → looked if they would show bias and rate them high •*SMEs biases* • Rated tasks as more important then than at entry time → maybe because they were then doing them • Liked to endorse "abilities" vs "tasks" for frequency questions.. Perhaps because they're less verifible -- inflate things to make them feel better - but less verifiable = some element of inflation and bias → want to feel like they are doing important things → On average people "had" 2 bogus abilities and 1 bogus task → should be 0

What is a test?

• Objective & standardized procedure for measuring a psychological quality that produces a score - Attributes to be assessed → *CONTENT* - Ways to assess attributes → *PROCESS*

Dimensional Approach

• Organizations described as having more/less of various characteristics instead of being a specificity "type" • Examples of dimensions: -- Specialization of functions -- Centralization of authority - or are people free to be productive -- Formal/informal structure -- Network interdependency ⇒ more complex view than typology

Similarities Between Early Sociological Theories

• People are motivated by different things and they are not always compatible • People are more selfish than altruistic *•All assume that there is a particular solution of the problems → that there is one best configuration* --> *•Emphasized structure more than process* • Assume only organizations affect employees vs, mutual influence • Also very limited perspective → white/european - (Western) European philosophers • Developed before scientific knowledge about power of individuals •From societies before modern industrialization, technology, globalization, etc

Typical v Maximum performance (Klehe & Anderson, 2007)

• Perhaps on a continuum • Differentiated by motivation and ability --> Refer to Campbell's model • Which one converts typical to maximum? --> H: maximum performance is determined by motivation and ability --> H: typical performance is determined by motivation and ability • Sample : 138 students from psych department • Procedure: imagine yourself as a hardware retailer, find out competitors' process: -- 10 minutes practice -- Questionnaire -- 1.5 hr searching task with list of 103 products • Attempted to simulate real work conditions → want to determine whether max performance is different than typical • *Typical performance* = average time to find correct price • *Max performance* = specific 5-min period when experimenter entered the room to observe -- "Just checkin how they're doing" ⇒ motivates maximum performance • The have another typical period when the work on their own • Results - Focused more on task - More task mouse-clicks / min - More correct prices/min - There was also a difference between the 2 typical levels → likely due to fatigue by the end of the study • Hypothesis supported -- Complicated analyses b/c tracking performance changes over time *Shows that people don't always work at their maximum level*. • *Ability* relates to *maximum performance* • *Motivation* relates to *typical performance*

Research findings - Personality

• Popularity at work (Scott & Judge 2009) - online survey -- What makes workers popular? Positive core self-evaluations & communication centrality. • Sample 1: 116 undergraduates who worked at least 20 hr/wk -- popularity & helpful work behaviors r = .43 -- popularity & counterproductive behaviors r = -.38 -- popularity & interpersonal liking r = .67 • Sample 2: 139 healthcare employees at a large hospital -- popularity & helpful work behaviors r = .24 -- popularity & counterproductive behaviors r = -.16 (ns) -- popularity & interpersonal liking r = .55 *Group Difference in Personality* • Race differences (Foldes, Duehr, & Ones 2008) - meta-analysis of over 700 results from past studies during a 20-year period - Some "inclusion criteria": US adults, non-clinical populations, measures of the Big Five - 50% general population; 31% organizational samples; 19% students - size of groups analyzed ranged from 359 to 161, 283 - Results against Whites as the reference group: • = General results → for the Big Five see generally similar results across ethnic groups

Differences between Academic Tests & Practical Problems? (Neisser et al.)

• Problems: academic vs practical - Formulated by others, - Well-defined, - Complete information, - One correct answer, - One method of solving problems, - Not linked to real world, - Little intrinsic value → SATS are one example

**Goal Orientations

• Qualities aren't opposed - can be on multiple •*Performance [goal orientation]* - comparison with the norm - people are motivated to look good/better than those around them → this is motivating -- 1) *Approach / Prove* = want to appear better than the norm → may not care if they are actually better than the average -- 2) *Avoid* = appear better than awful; don't want to look bad *•Mastery [goal orientation]* -- 3) *(Approach)* = intrinsic desire to develop mastery → Intrinsic → are you motivated to master a task → not really a 4th component ⇒ judging yourself against others, or on own performance • Generally, *mastery orientation is important for persistence* in the face of failure → Mastery always applies -- other two don't always, i.e after failure

Resumes and Job applications

• Resumes and job applications are most similar to biodata • Biodata = application blank - Express things about yourself and relevant experiences - hobbies - Premise 1: Past predicts future - get to know what the person is like - Premise 2: Ecology model - a profile → capturing the 'true' self - whole picture → is predictive → Presented as multiple choice questions about past behavior

History of Professional Organization

• SIOP → Profession based on *Scientist-Practitioner model* - in order to be effective -- Combines research and practice → basic and applied work -- As seen in the Overjustification effect - two don't always align

Charles Spearman's g

• Spearman measured a number of different qualities about people and found that many were correlated to some degree ("positive manifold") • This general clumping of qualities g then predicted different kinds of success -- S = specific ability

Employment interviews

• Specific qualities being assessed → standardized questions tp see who's best • Personality, social/leadership skills, and mental capability assessed most often • *Situational Interviews* → tests within the interview → example of your responses

Knowledge

• Stuff you accumulate through your g -- *Distinct from intelligence* - can know things without being able to apply them • *Acquired through experience: Acquiring knowledge → from experience *What does experience indicate?* - Accumulation of knowledge through trial-and-error learning? - Things that can be make you better than someone with experience --> Don't have bad habits --> Smart - and driven can learn quickly → taking a long time to learn isn't a good thing • Which job KSAOs can only (or should) be gained through experience? Why?

Test Validation

• Test validation → *important for developing measures* = provide evidence that a test has validity (is accurate) • Tests should predict relevant outcomes but also... - Have practical utility for the organization - Have legal defensibility - Meet ethical standards in psychology for administration and use

Overjustification Effect - Lepper et al. 1973

• Theory: Self-Perception - we judge ourselves as if we have an outside head judging ourselves → how do we judge our own behavior - is it motivation? • Sample: N=55 nursery school children, middle class, 3-5 years -- 3 black children excluded to make conclusions more precise • Design: Field experiment -- Children observed through one-way mirrors during free play (i.e most of the day) • Experiments introduced new activity comparable to other play → magic markers • Interest defined as either: -- Putting hand on marker -- "Sitting" st station = occupying chair at exclusion of another VS. "fanny toughin seat" • Experimenters lured children playing w/ markers to the "surprise room" • Conditions: please draw for a visitor... -- Control A: no reward -- Control B: reward after drawing w/markers -- Manipulation: "good player "award" offered to draw • Allowed ~6 minutes to draw to prevent full satisfaction & boredom with activity • Children returned to classroom Researcher observed time spent playing with markers • Who played with the markers most back in the class: Results -- Control conditions continued to play with the markers ~ 17% -- Award condition: 8.59% → *judged the behavior as driven by reward* • Picture quality rated by blind judges, scale from 1-5 -- # of pictures stable across conditions - quality differed: 2.18 (award) vs. ~2.7 (controls) *Overjustification effect summarized* • Intrinsic→ played with markers • Extrinsic → additional (over) justification for playing with markers • Children perceives self as interested in markers only because of extrinsic rewards • Removal of extrinsic → insufficient justification for playing with markers *•Extrinsic undermines intrinsic*

Interviews

• Typically, interviews talk twice as much as interviewees • Interviews not trusted, but also moreso when - Incumbent vs. professional recruiters - Provide more, better information • Intervirewees favored when.. - Affirmative body movements - Agree with interview - Emphasize positive traits - Tell personal stories - Ask positive questions - Claim good fit

Criterion-related validity - evaluation

• What 'outcomes' are being predicted • Many different "validity" concepts in research bit this one is simple - *How well does an assessment predict (correlate with) an outcome* ⇒ have 2 measures • Common criteria: job performance, satisfaction organizational effectiveness • *Predictive* vs *concurrent validation* approaches - *Predictive* → measure applicants - then measure them on the job → see if predictions are accurate ⇒ not great casue lose lots of people bauce not everyone gets hired - *Concurrent* → measure incumbents (already hired) and them measure them on the jobs → sort of cheating, but more convenient

Trainee Preparedness

• What is "trainable?" • Which trainees are ready to learn? - E.L THorndike's law of readiness - Prior experience in training → allow for shorter and less structured programs • *Person x Situation interaction?* -> certain types of people are more ready to learn from training than others (Gully Article!) → effectiveness in error training is dependent on the *cognitive ability* or *dispositional traits* fo trainee. High cognitive ability or more open individuals benefit more from error-couragement training than low cognitive ability or less open individuals •*Innovative Solutions* • Some organizations use learning tools to substitute for prerequisite skills: literacy & memory recall - McDonald's → literacy may be a prerequisite for some jobs - can supplement with pictures tp skip that necessary step of training - LA Film Festival volunteers → Have signs everywhere to inform volunteers - remind them of what they may have forgotten = compensates for the prerequisite of extensive training that you don't have time for

Noncompensatory: Multiple Hurdles

• When you CANNOT compensate in a certain area → i.e. important of physical fitness as a firefighter → intelligence can't compensate for this • *Hurdles are stages set up at different points in time, where applicants must pass each one to stay in the process*

Rating Errors - Biases

• Where do we get ratings that are error prone - we have biases • *Positive / negative bias* - good or bad job • *Race-based bias* • *Central tendency* - tend to rate in the middle of the scale → don't want people to stick out (Asian culture) • *Leniency / Severity* = opposite = extremes → only use half the scale essentially • *Halo* = halo error / or devil error = idea that take behavior in one aspect and assume that it is how you work globally = overgeneralize performance is a specific task to performance overall → apply specific to broad ⇒ can we eliminate / control these errors by training raters? -- Very hard to get people to not make cognitive errors, although training exists -- Still looking into how to reduce these errors

Motivational Interventions

•*Contingent Rewards* → behaviorism -- Contingent rewards seen to have immediate effects on target behaviors - increased behaviors compared to controls → most effective in developing simple individual behaviors •*Job Enrichment* • Based on Maslow's theory • ⇒ A motivational approach that involves *increasing the responsibility* and *interest level* of jobs in order *to increase the motivation* and *job satisfaction* of employees performing those jobs • Motivation potential tied to 5 job characteristics -- Skill variety - the number of skills required to perform a task or job successfully -- Task identity - the extent to which a task or job is self-contained, with a clear beginning, middle, and end; the extent to which a task can be meaningfully understood in relation to other tasks Task significance - the perceived importance of the job for the organization or society as a whole -- Autonomy - the extent to which the individual worker can control schedules, procedures, and the like -- Task feedback - the extent to which the individual gets direct information from the task itself (as opposed to a supervisor) about his or her level of performance ⇒ A job high in motivation potential would be one that is high on each of these five characteristics → individual must be focused on higher-order needs in order for these job characteristics to have any effect •*ProMES* • → developed by Pritchard and colleagues → productivity improvement plan ⇒ Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System • → motivational approach that utilizes goal setting, rewards, and feedback to increase motivation and performance • → maximizes motivation primarily through cognitive means - make detailed plans for productivity improvement • *Indicators* - Quantitative measures of how well each objective is being met in the ProMES approach • Results in -- Larger improvements in productivity -- Improvements effects last for years -- Effects can be seen in a wide range of organizations and countries

Assessment: Measures

•*Predictors / KSASs*: - Cognitive abilities personality & interests, fit - Affect - Motivation •*Outcomes / criteria*: - Job performance (multiple kinds) → multiple ways to measure - Etc.

Motivational Theories -- Classic Approaches Equity Theory

→ Adams - transplantation of Festinger's ideas of dissonance theory to the workplace ⇒ Suggests that individuals look at their world in terms of comparative inputs and outcomes. Individuals compare their inputs and outcomes with others (e.g. coworkers) by developing an input/outcomes ratio --• Input - the training, effort, skills, abilities, etc. that employees bring to or invest in their work --• Outcomes - The compensation, satisfaction, and other benefits employees derive from their work --• Comparison other - a co-worker or idealized other person to which the individual compares himself or herself in determining perceived equity --• Outcome/Input ratio - ratio that results when employees compare their inputs to those of others (e/g/ coworkers) to determine if they are being treated equitably • ⇒ Proposed a socially-based rationality, unlike VIE theory • Not sort of overshadowed by fairness and justice perceptions

Classic organizational theories

→ Historical theorists - sociological perspectives theory that assumes that there is one best configuration for an organization, regardless of its circumstances: places a premium on control of individual behavior by the organization

Early applied psychologists *Elton Mayo*

→ Human Relations movement - Hawthorne studies - focusing of workers as humans → lighting, resting breaks, etc.

Intelligence

→ Jenken's interviews → person talking about baseball - knew loads of facts but didn't know any of the rules and major players.. ⇒ Just knowing information a book can do, but using and manipulating that information is what g can do

Goal-Setting Theory

→ Locke and colleagues ⇒ Unlike need, equity, and VIE theories = has evolved into a mature and comprehensive approach to work motivation • "Goal" is a very popular motivational construct → people often express their actions in terms of purpose • *Notion of purposefulness and intentionality is unique to goal-setting theory* ⇒ theory in which general concept of a goal is adapted to work motivation - a goal is seen as a motivational force, and individuals who set specific, difficult goals perform better than individuals who simply adopt a "do your best" goal or no goal at all → individuals who set difficult goals will perform better vs. easy goals • Goal acceptance vs Goal commitment → commitment is broader - includes both assigned and self-set goals ⇒ Mechanism by which goals affect performance -- Goals direct attention and action (direction) mobilizing energy expenditure or effort (effort), prolonging effect overtime (persistence) and motivating the individual to develop relevant strategies for goal attainment (strategy) -- *Feedback loop - connection between knowledge of results and the intermediate states that occur between goal commitment and performance ⇒ makes the theory more dynamic - evaluation of performance may change intermediate states → takes into account present, past and future actions *Challenges of Goal-Setting Theory* • Must adapt theory to a changing work environment • Should incorporate knowledge and skill into the model *Levels of Explanation in Goal Setting* -- Goal-setting theory = first-level explanation of behavior -- Goals may derive from higher-order concepts (e.g. motives or values) = second-level explanations of goal-setting theory ⇒ Needs → Motives → Goals → Performance

Max Weber

→ Order through Ideological Authority • Organizations = political arenas --> People seek to fulfil their needs → leads to conflict • Conflict results from organization • *Bureaucracy* control conflict = ideal form of organization → includes formal hierarchy and division of labor • *Structure* is essential

Control Theories and the Concept of Self-Regulation

→ based on the principle of feedback loop → feedback loop deals with the discrepancy between actual goal accomplishment and the goal to which the individual is committed • *Self-regulation* - process by which individuals take in information about behavior and make adjustments or changes based on that information. These changes in turn, affect subsequent behavior (e.g. strategies, goal commitment) ⇒ One can increase both work motivation and work performance by engaging in strategies such as seeking feedback and engagement in constructive change = dynamic and active process * •Self-efficacy* - the belief in one's capabilities to perform a specific task or reach a specific goal ⇒ plays an increasingly important role in modern theories of work motivation - Central to goal-directed behavior and performance → relates to our confidence in our ability or in the likelihood that we will be able to successfully complete a difficult task ⇒ essential for motivational incentives

Classic "Organizational Theory (OT)"

→ dimensions of organizations -- characteristics along which organizations can be described • Weber's dimensions of organization: *Dimensions of bureaucracy* -- Division of labor -- Delegation of authority -- Span of control --> Structure = points 1,2,3 above + height (levels of authority) → describes who is in charge = work charts (rather irrelevant regarding what organizations really do) *Organizational charts* • Reveal structural relationships -- Hierarchy -- Span of control • But modern theories indicate processes more important than structure --> Ex: recent trend → nominal promotions Span of Control *•Small span of control* = few direct reports to each boss - supervise few people (many different levels) *• Large span of control* = span is much wider for some people → can be a lot of people under one boss → describes who is in charge = work charts (rather irrelevant regarding what organizations really do)

Validity of popular selection tools

→ from meta-analysis - .51 general mental ability - .49 peer ratings - .44 for structure & .33 for unstructured - .37, SJT* but dependent on g-loading - .26 reference check - .11 college GPA - .10 vocational interests • Applicant reactions → what tools do *applicants like* - reactions to different kinds of tools - Interviews - Work sample - Resumes - References - Cognitive ability personality → these are highest - Biodata - Personality contacts - Honest tests - Graphology ⇒ these are useful tools for selecting ways of selecting people

Emile Durkheim

⇒ Organizations = Order due to interdependence → opposed Marks • Key = division of labor → labor is divided because it has a specialized function to help organization • Labor divided between managers and workers because of specialized functions --> Both functions help the organization → both groups have a goal, are working together • Groups depend on each other --> "organic solidarity" --> Cooperation → social harmony • More positive view than marks - the two groups are working together - one is not at the whim of the other

Karl Marx

⇒ Organizations control conflict from capitalism - Organizations are there to help people gain goods --> Trade → profit = capitalism → Capitalism creates a class conflict: Haves (managers) Have-Nots (workers) • Control conflict via social order (religious or. physical oppression) = control people by how they think so that act how you want • Necessary byproduct of capitalism = Have Nots feel alienated and worthless → viewed as necessary for organized society