Utilizing Task Analysis to Identify Coordination Requirements in Three different Clinical Settings

[We’re pleased to welcome authors Dr. Sarah Henrickson Parker of Virginia Tech, Dr. Jan B. Schmutz of ETH Zürich, and Dr. Tanja Manser of the University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland. They recently published an article in Group and Organization Management entitled “Training Needs for Adaptive Coordination: Utilizing Task Analysis to Identify Coordination Requirements in Three Different Clinical Settings” which is currently free to read for a limited time. Below, Dr. Manser speaks about the motivation and challenges of this research:]

GOM_72ppiRGB_powerpoint

What motivated you to pursue this research?

We were interested in understanding general principles of coordination in healthcare teams across different healthcare settings. All of the authors have conducted research in this area for quite some time but usually one study only allows us to study teams in a specific clinical setting. We were interested in seeing if there were any general principles that applied across clinical settings. If so, these could have a much larger impact on the training of healthcare professionals.

What has been the most challenging aspect of conducting your research? Were there any surprising findings?

As this was a secondary analysis of existing data, we each had our own challenges with the initial data collection. It is always fun, exciting and challenging to work with healthcare providers in both real and simulated settings. One exciting finding of the current study is the overlap in coordination requirements across clinical settings and tasks. Triggers for re-coordination, anchoring points for coordination, and a deliberate transition from implicit to explicit coordination during unexpected clinical situations were all consistently noted as exemplars of excellent team coordination.

What advice would you give to new scholars and incoming researchers in this particular field of study?

It is important to immerse yourself in the work context you are studying and to continue to build relationships with those that are doing the work. We believe that the interactions with healthcare providers allow us, as psychologists, to make sure our work is interpreted correctly from a scientific point of view but also relevant and used as intended from an applied point of view. Our experience this requires researchers to be able to speak the language of both clinical care and work psychology.

Stay up-to-date with the latest research from Group and Organization Management and sign up for email alerts today through the homepage!

 

The Relationships Between Stress, Drinking, and Complaints at Work

stress-2051408_1920[We’re pleased to welcome authors Jeremy D. Mackey of Auburn University and Pamela L. Perrewé of Florida State University. They recently published an article in the Group and Organization Management entitled “The Relationships Between Hindrance Stressors, Problem Drinking, and Somatic Complaints at Work” which is currently free to read for a limited time. Below, Mackey speaks about the motivation and challenges of this research:]

GOM_72ppiRGB_powerpointPam Perrewé and I were excited to publish our paper entitled “The Relationships between Hindrance Stressors, Problem Drinking, and Somatic Complaints at Work” in Group & Organization Management. We were motivated to conduct our study on the indirect effects of hindrance stressors on somatic complaints at work through problem drinking because we were interested in examining the impact of problem drinking on organizational stress processes. Our conceptualization of problem drinking examines alcohol consumption that is personally and/or socially harmful. Although problem drinking has been widely studied in psychology research, its effects have yet to be fully illuminated in organizational research. Thus, we sought to examine the effects of perceptions of workplace obstacles (i.e., hindrance stressors) on physiological strain (i.e., somatic complaints at work) through problem drinking. We hope our innovative conceptualization of problem drinking as a self-medication coping mechanism impacts research and practice by encouraging researchers and practitioners to examine the role of employees’ attempts to cope with organizational stress by engaging in problem drinking.

The most challenging aspect of conducting our study was how to appropriately examine problem drinking in organizational contexts. Problem drinking is a sensitive topic and there is little precedent for how to appropriately study it in organizational settings. Ultimately, we opted to examine employees’ frequencies of problem drinking because it was appropriate for our research question and study design. We recommend that other scholars who pursue this field of study consider the numerous ways of measuring problem drinking in order to choose appropriate ways to measure it for their research goals. For example, examining quantities of alcohol consumed, drinking to intoxication, the frequency/intensity of experienced hangovers, and problem drinking within the workplace all offer useful ways for future research to examine problem drinking and assess its effects on groups and organizations.

Stay up-to-date with the latest research from Group and Organization Management and sign up for email alerts today through the homepage!

Running photo attributed to geralt. (CC)

A Meta-Analysis of Gender Proportionality Effects on Job Performance

gender-equality-1977912_1920 (1)[We’re pleased to welcome authors Jeremy D. Mackey of Auburn University, Philip L. Roth of Clemson University, Chad H. Van Iddekinge of Florida State University, and Lynn A Mcfarland of the University of South Carolina. They recently published an article in Group & Organization Management entitled “A Meta-Analysis of Gender Proportionality Effects on Job Performance,” which is currently free to read for a limited time. Below, they discuss their motivations and findings:]

GOM_72ppiRGB_powerpointPhil Roth, Chad Van Iddekinge, Lynn McFarland, and I began working on our study entitled “A Meta-Analysis of Gender Proportionality Effects on Job Performance” because we wanted to examine whether gender proportionality (i.e., the percentage of females in an organization) affects females’ job performance relative to males’ job performance. Overall, we found weak effects of gender proportionality on job performance. Specifically, we found support for a no token effect perspective rather than a linear or curvilinear token effect perspective. Our findings are important because they challenge the prevailing wisdom of critical mass theory and the tokenism hypothesis. We hope our study stimulates additional research in this important area of inquiry.

The most challenging aspect of conducting our research was its scope. Research that examines gender effects on performance has affected numerous fields, including management, applied psychology, sociology, and criminal justice. Thus, it was a challenge to determine the appropriate scope for our study so our results could be generalizable. Ultimately, we included data from 158 independent studies that included a total of 101,071 respondents.

The most surprising finding from our study was the consistent lack of support for linear or curvilinear effects of gender proportionality on job performance across types of performance (i.e., overall subjective job performance, task performance, OCBs, and objective performance) and features of study designs. Overall, our findings were consistent for respondents from civilian or military organizations, whether single or multiple organizations were included in each sample, regardless of whether respondents had managerial or non-managerial jobs, whether there were traditional stereotypes of men’s work or women’s work for respondents’ jobs, regardless of administrative or research purposes for each study, despite whether each study was published or unpublished, and regardless of the year of publication of each study.

Despite our findings, we encourage future research to examine gender proportionality effects on job performance and other organizational outcomes because it is important to understand the conditions in which gender proportionality affects organizational outcomes and the types of outcomes that are affected by gender proportionality.

Stay up-to-date with the latest research from GOM and sign up for email alerts today through the homepage!

Weighing photo attributed to Tumisu. (CC)

Personalized and Depersonalized Responses to Leaders’ Fair Treatment

editedgroupHow can employees’ perceptions of fairness simultaneously fuel both personalized and depersonalized leader-member relations? In a recent article published in Group & Organization, entitled “Personalized and Depersonalized Responses to Leaders’ Fair Treatment: Status Judgments and Leader-Member Exchange as Mediating Mechanisms,” author Amer A. Al-Atwi explores two psychological mechanisms through which the leader’s fair treatment encourages followers to define themselves in terms of a given role and group membership relationships. The abstract for the article:

By extracting insights from leader–member exchange (LMX) theory and social identity theory, this study predicted that a leader’s interactional justice is associated with followers’ multifoci identification by personalized and depersonalized mediating Current Issue Covermechanisms. Specifically, we hypothesized that a leader’s interactional justice affects (a) followers’ relational identification via the LMX as a personalized response and (b) followers’ work-group identification via status judgments (pride and respect) as a depersonalized response. The study’s constructs were measured on three separate occasions over an interval of 4 months, using data from a sample of 322 employees at a large public university. As predicted, we found that (a) LMX mediates the relationship between interactional justice and relational identification and (b) status judgments (pride and respect) mediate the relationships between interactional justice and work-group identification. Theoretical and practical implications for these findings are discussed.

You can read “Personalized and Depersonalized Responses to Leaders’ Fair Treatment: Status Judgments and Leader-Member Exchange as Mediating Mechanisms” from Group & Organization free for the next two weeks by clicking here.

Follow us @GroupOrgMgmt

Want to stay current on all of the latest research published by Group & Organization ManagementClick here to sign up for e-alerts! You can also follow Group & Organization Management on Twitter–click here to see the most recent tweets!

*Group image attributed to Lindebornt (CC)

Trust and Distrust in the Pursuit of Career Advancement

8616564123_9f697724c0_z[We’re pleased to welcome Joshua Marineau of North Dakota State University. Joshua recently published an article in Group & Organization Management entitled “Trust and Distrust Network Accuracy and Career Advancement in an Organization.”]

  • What inspired you to be interested in this topic?

The key interest I had with this study was wondering if it was beneficial to know your sources of liabilities—that is, do you really want to know who distrusts you at work? And if you did know, would you be better off?  This was an interesting question for me because there has been relatively little work in this area and this was an opportunity to test some new ideas. There is a lot of work which shows our social networks matter, but not much showing whether knowledge of the social network matters, and very little work on negative ties, such as distrust.  Here I found evidence that knowing your sources of trust and distrust can be quite beneficial, especially when it comes to being promoted at work.

  • Were there findings that were surprising to you?Current Issue Cover

In conducting this study, I was surprised that there wasn’t a clear positive moderation effect for network accuracy on performance related to increased chances for promotion. It seems that being accurate is very helpful, but this doesn’t benefit high performers much. One can benefit from either high accuracy or high performance; but together, there does not seem to be much advantage.

  • How do you see this study influencing future research and/or practice?

I hope this research has a modest influence on how scholars think about social networks in organizations, particularly when it comes to individual outcomes. Those that know their sources of positive and negative ties can benefit—this means that one’s position in the network is just one factor in explaining outcomes, therefore scholars might also consider how accurate the person is about their network. I believe this is one of the first studies to look at career advancement and network accuracy and one of the first to use negative ties (i.e., distrust). In terms of practice, knowing who trusts and distrusts you can actually be a good thing, and can pay dividends—suggesting that spending some energy getting to know your network can pay off, particularly if your performance is low!

The abstract for the paper:

Although there is some evidence individuals’ knowledge of the organization’s social network can be a valuable resource, providing advantages, it is unclear whether those advantages also relate to employee performance outcomes, such as career advancement. Thus, the question this study seeks to answer is “Does accuracy of the social network provide a unique resource unto itself, positively affecting one’s promotion in the organization?” This question is answered from a social exchange and social resources view using cognitive social structure-style data collected in the call center of a large U.S. restaurant equipment manufacturing firm. Evidence suggests that social network accuracy of the work-related trust and distrust networks increased the chances for promotion compared with the less accurate. In addition, trust and distrust network accuracy moderated supervisor-rated performance effects on promotion, such that accuracy is generally more beneficial for low compared with high performance individuals, increasing their chances of promotion. Contributions to research in career advancement, social networks, network cognition, and positive and negative tie perception are discussed.

You can read “Trust and Distrust Network Accuracy and Career Advancement in an Organization” from Group & Organization Management free for the next two weeks by clicking here. Want to stay current on all of the latest research from Group & Organization Management? Click here to sign up for e-alerts!

 *Image credited to Pal-Kristian Hamre (CC)

How Organizational Fit Impacts Workplace Stress

5283034437_d17754cefd_z[We’re pleased to welcome Jeremy Mackey. Jeremy recently published an article entitled “Do I Fit In? Perceptions of Organizational Fit as a Resource in the Workplace Stress Process” in Group & Organization Management with  co-authors Pamela L. Perrewé and Charn P. McAllister.]

Pam Perrewé, Charn McAllister, and I began working on our paper entitled “Do I Fit in? Perceptions of Organizational Fit as a Resource in the Workplace Stress Process” because we were interested in whether or not perceptions of organizational fit could fundamentally alter employees’ workplace stress processes. We were able to collect three samples of data from diverse groups of U.S. employees across a variety of occupations and industries, including a sample of data comprised of respondents who were veterans of the U.S. military. Ultimately, we found evidence that perceptions of organizational fit can serve as a resource that reduces perceptions of job strain and increases motivation across a variety of organizational contexts as employees experience the workplace stress process.

We were surprised that some of the average reports (i.e., means) of the study variables we examined differed across Current Issue Coverthe three samples of data, but that the stress process and the relationships in our hypothesized model generally demonstrated similar effect sizes across samples. We concluded that although ratings of the individual components of the workplace stress process varied, the overall workplace stress process we examined appeared to stay mostly intact.

Many research studies examine perceptions of organizational fit as an outcome of workplace perceptions and behaviors, but we conceptualized it as a resource that could be an antecedent to workplace perceptions and behaviors. We hope our conceptualization of organizational fit as a resource will inform and encourage future research and organizational efforts to understand and manage employees’ levels of stress.

The abstract for the paper:

A large number of research studies in the stress literature over the previous 20 years have examined how organizational demands influence experienced stress; however, little research has examined how perceptions of organizational fit influence experienced stress and the stress process. In the present study, we use the conservation of resources (COR) theory to examine how perceptions of hindrance stressors, challenge stressors, and organizational fit (i.e., a resource) affect employees’ intrapersonal (i.e., job satisfaction and work intensity) and interpersonal (i.e., interpersonal workplace deviance and work-to-family conflict) outcomes through job strain (i.e., job tension) and motivational (i.e., vigor) cognitive stress processes. Results from three samples of data (nSample 1 = 268, nSample 2 = 259, nSample 3 = 168) largely supported the hypothesized model and suggested that perceptions of organizational fit can be a resource associated with favorable effects on employees’ stress processes. Thus, we contribute to the stress and fit literatures by proposing and demonstrating empirical support for a COR theoretical explanation of why perceptions of organizational fit are a resource for employees. The results are important because they help provide a broader view of the effects of perceptions of organizational fit on employees’ stress processes than offered by prior research and suggest that organizational leaders have the opportunity to help employees manage workplace stress by fostering perceptions of organizational fit. Implications of results for theory and practice, strengths, limitations, and directions for future research are presented.

You can read “Do I Fit In? Perceptions of Organizational Fit as a Resource in the Workplace Stress Process” from Group & Organization Management free for the next two weeks here. Want to know all about the latest research from Group & Organization ManagementClick here to sign up for e-alerts!

*Coworkers image attributed to ryan harvey (CC)

Jeremy D. Mackey is an Assistant Professor of Management in the Raymond J. Harbert College of Business at Auburn University. His current research interests include abusive supervision, interpersonal mistreatment, stress, and meta-analysis.

Pamela L. Perrewé is the Haywood and Betty Taylor Eminent Scholar of Business Administration and Distinguished Research Professor at Florida State University. She has focused her research interests in the areas of job stress, coping, organizational politics, emotion, and personality.

Charn P. McAllister is a PhD student in Management at Florida State University. His research interests include social influence, self-regulation, and stress.

Do Applicant Reactions to Selection Systems Matter? Let Us Count the Ways…

16719524657_06f8bd29de_z[We’re pleased to welcome Talya Bauer of Portland State University. Talya recently published an article in Group & Organization Management with co-authors Udo Konradt, Yvonne Garbers, Martina Boge, and Berrin Erdogan, entitled “Antecedents and Consequences of Fairness Perceptions in Personnel Selection: A 3-Year Longitudinal Study”]

  • So just what are applicant reactions and why should you care?

Applicant reactions refer to a class of perceptions that job applicants experience as they go through the selection process. It is posited that how employees feel about the job application process, and particularly their perceptions of fair treatment, relate to outcomes organizations care about, such as a lower likelihood of withdrawing one’s candidacy, more positive attitudes toward the employer, accepting the job offer, referring others to apply to the company, purchasing a company’s products, and lower likelihood of employment-related lawsuits.

In terms of research, applicant reactions really began in the 1980s. The topic gained traction in the 1990’s after the publication of Stephen Gilliland’s (1993) classic theory article on the topic. Following this model, and others which emerged around this time, researchers began studying the topic and found that procedural justice (aka the fairness of the processes used to make decisions) and distributive justice (aka the GOM_Feb_2016.inddfairness of what outcome you get) influenced how attractive employers were seen and how likely job candidates said they were to refer the employer to others and to take a job with the employer if offered one.

The following decade included a bit of a backlash against applicant reactions research with scholars debating how much it mattered and how long the effects of applicant reactions actually last. It was not until 2013 when we started to see strong evidence that applicant reactions do matter beyond pre-entry attitudes. McCarthy and colleagues (2013) found that reactions affected test scores which in turn influenced job performance in a variety of settings using both predictive and concurrent designs. However, it still was not clear that there was a direct relationship between applicant reactions and on-the-job performance.

A current study, “Antecedents and consequences of procedural justice perceptions in personnel selection: A three-year longitudinal study” by Udo Konradt, Yvonne Garbers, Martina Weber of the University of Kiel and two of us (Berrin Erdogan and Talya Bauer), which is in press at Group & Organization Management followed job candidates for an apprenticeship program of a large German industrial firm across three years. What was found was fascinating.  Perceptions of fairness that applicants felt during the testing and hiring process related to job offer acceptance as well as job performance at 18 months. At 36 months post-entry, no relationship existed. Performance included both written job knowledge and performing specific job tasks. This finding is consistent with work on new employee socialization which finds that different perceptions and aspects of adjustment matter differentially over time (Bauer & Erdogan, 2011).

  • So, what does this mean for employers and researchers?

Labor markets ebb and flow but what does not change is the competition for the best talent available. These individuals are always in demand and early applicant reactions research finds that it is the best applicants for whom applicant reactions matter the most. For example, Rynes and colleagues (1991) found that when applicants did not hear back from employers, it was the strongest applicants who had the most negative reactions. In total, we now know that applicant reactions matter across the job search spectrum as well as beyond. At least for apprentices, on-the-job performance was related to perceptions of fairness 18 months earlier. This opens up the door for researchers to continue to examine the larger constellation of factors associated with applicant reactions. It also offers a lever for organizations to enhance the perception of their employment brand and selection systems by systematically working through the types of procedural justice factors that matter to improve their brand.

You can read “Antecedents and Consequences of Fairness Perceptions in Personnel Selection: A 3-Year Longitudinal Study” from Group & Organization Management free for the next two weeks by clicking here. Want to know all about the latest research from Group & Organization ManagementClick here to sign up for e-alerts!

*Image credited to Nazareth College (CC)

References

Bauer, T. N., & Erdogan, B. (2011).  Organizational socialization:  The effective onboarding of new employees.  In S. Zedeck, H. Aguinis, W. Cascio, M. Gelfand, K. Leung, S. Parker, & J. Zhou (Eds.).  APA Handbook of I/O Psychology, Volume III, pp. 51-64.  Washington, DC:  APA Press.

Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. (2004).  An agenda for future research on applicant reactions to selection procedures: A construct-oriented approach. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 9-23.

Gilliland, S. J. (1993) The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice perspective. Academy of Management Review, 18, 694-734.

McCarthy, J. M., Van Iddekinge, C. H., Lievens, F., Kung, M.-C., Sinar, E. F., & Campion, M. A. (2013). Do candidate reactions relate to job performance or affect criterion-related validity? A multistudy investigation of relations among reactions, selection test scores, and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 701-719.

Ryan, A. M., & Ployhart, R. E. (2000). Applicants’ perceptions of selection procedures and decisions. Journal of Management, 26, 565-606.

Rynes, S. L., Bretz, R. D., & Gerhart, B. (1991). The importance of recruiting in job choice: A different way of looking. Personnel Psychology, 44, 487-521.


Talya Bauer photo 2015Talya N. Bauer (Ph.D., Purdue University) is the Cameron Professor of Management and Affiliated Professor of Psychology at Portland State University. She is an award-winning teacher and researcher and recipient of the SIOP Distinguished Teaching Award as well as the Academy of Management Human Resource division’s Innovations in Teaching Award. She conducts research about relationships at work including recruitment, applicant reactions to selection, onboarding, and leadership. Her work has been supported by grants from both the SHRM and SIOP Foundations and has been published in research outlets such as the Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Learning and Education Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, and Personnel Psychology. She has worked with dozens of government, Fortune 1000, and start-up organizations and has been a Visiting Scholar in France, Spain, and at Google Headquarters. She has served in elected positions including the HRM Executive Committee of the Academy of Management and Member-at-Large for SIOP. She currently serves as an Associate Editor for the Journal of Applied Psychology (and is the former Editor of Journal of Management). Her work has been discussed in the New York Times, BusinessWeek, Wall Street Journal, Harvard Business Review, USA Today, and NPR’s All Things Considered.  She is a fellow of the SIOP, the American Psychological Association, and Association for Psychological Science.

BerrinErdogan

Berrin Erdogan (Ph.D., University of Illinois at Chicago) is Express Employment Professionals Professor of Management and Affiliated Professor of Psychology at Portland State University. She conducts studies exploring factors that lead to engagement, well-being, effectiveness, and retention in the workplace, with a focus on manager-employee relationships and underemployment. These studies took place in a variety of industries including manufacturing, clothing and food retail, banking, health care, education, and information technology in the USA, Turkey, India, China, France, and Vietnam. Her work appeared in journals including Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, and Personnel Psychology and has been discussed in media outlets including the New York Times, Harvard Business Review, and the Oregonian. Dr. Erdogan has been a visiting scholar in Koç University (Istanbul, Turkey), ALBA Business School at the American College of Greece, and University of Valencia (Spain). In addition to serving on numerous editorial boards, she currently serves as an Associate Editor for Personnel Psychology, served as an Associate Editor for European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology and is the co-editor of the forthcoming title Oxford Handbook of Leader-Member Exchange. She is a fellow of SIOP.

Prof. Dr. Udo KonradtUdo Konradt is full professor of work, organizational, and market psychology at Kiel University, Germany. He holds a doctoral degree in Psychology from the University of Bochum. He has published on information systems and Human Resource Management issues in several academic journals.

Yvonne Garbers

Yvonne Garbers is an assistant professor at Kiel University, Germany. She holds a PhD in work and organizational psychology (Kiel University). Her current research interests include (destructive) leadership, shared leadership, team-member exchange, and work-family interference.

Martina Boge finished her Major studies in Psychology at the University of Leipzig. She has worked as consultant and human resource manager for several years.

mccarthy_picJulie M. McCarthy (Ph.D., Western University) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Management and Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto. Julie’s research examines how organizations can ensure that their policies and practices are viewed favorably by job applicants and employees. She also investigates strategies that individuals can use to reduce anxiety, build resilience and achieve success in their work and home lives. Her work is published in leading academic journals, including the Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology, and Psychological Science, as well as book chapters in the influential Oxford Handbook Series. Her work is generously supported by funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), and she has received numerous awards and recognitions for her research contributions. Julie’s work has also received a considerable amount of media attention. In the corporate sector, Julie has developed leadership resilience programs, performance management systems and personnel selection tools on behalf public and private corporations.