Knowledge that Transforms

Although one of the most well-established research findings in industrial-organizational psychology is that general mental ability (GMA) is a strong and generalizable predictor of job performance, this meta-analytically derived conclusion is based largely on measures of task or overall performance. The primary purpose of this study is to address a void in the research literature by conducting a meta-analysis to determine the direction and magnitude of the correlation of GMA with 2 dimensions of nontask performance: counterproductive work behaviors (CWB) and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB). Overall, the results show that the true-score correlation between GMA and CWB is essentially 0 (-.02, k = 35), although rating source of CWB moderates this relationship. The true-score correlation between GMA and OCB is positive but modest in magnitude (.23, k = 43). The 2nd purpose of this study is to conduct meta-analytic relative weight analyses to determine the relative importance of GMA and the five-factor model (FFM) of personality traits in predicting nontask and task performance criteria. Results indicate that, collectively, the FFM traits are substantially more important for CWB than GMA, that the FFM traits are roughly equal in importance to GMA for OCB, and that GMA is substantially more important for task and overall job performance than the FFM traits. Implications of these findings for the development of optimal selection systems and the development of comprehensive theories of job performance are discussed along with study limitation and future research directions. (PsycINFO Database Record

Despite the alleged frequency of counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in the population, most samples exhibit exceedingly low base rates. One potential explanation for this incongruence is nonresponse bias, which leads to range restriction in the CWB distribution. We investigated this possibility by determining whether response rates within CWB research were lower than that found across management research and whether range restriction could explain reduced CWB engagement. We also examined whether range restriction attenuated CWB's relations to other variables. Our primary findings are that reported response rates for studies containing CWB measures are substantially lower (37%) than response rates reported within the general management literature (53%) and that range restriction is likely present in the CWB literature, resulting in low base rates and attenuated relations to CWB. In addition, tests of publication bias indicated that low response rates are less likely to be reported, and the true response rate within the CWB literature may be considerably lower.

Though individual assessments are widely used in selection settings, very little research exists to support their criterion-related validity. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted of 39 individual assessment validation studies. For the current research, individual assessments were defined as any employee selection procedure that involved (a) multiple assessment methods, (b) administered to an individual examinee, and (c) relying on assessor judgment to integrate the information into an overall evaluation of the candidate's suitability for a job. Assessor recommendations were found to be useful predictors of job performance, although the level of validity varied considerably across studies. Validity tended to be higher for managerial than nonmanagerial occupations and for assessments that included a cognitive ability test. Validity was not moderated by the degree of standardization of the assessment content or by use of multiple assessors for each candidate. However, higher validities were found when the same assessor was used across all candidates than when different assessors evaluated different candidates. These results should be interpreted with caution, given a small number of studies for many of the moderator subgroups as well as considerable evidence of publication bias. These limitations of the available research base highlight the need for additional empirical work to inform individual assessment practices. (PsycINFO Database Record

Our article develops a conceptual framework based primarily on national culture perspectives but also incorporating the role of managerial discretion (cultural tightness-looseness, institutional flexibility), which is aimed at achieving a better understanding of how the effectiveness of high-performance work systems (HPWSs) may vary across countries. Based on a meta-analysis of 156 HPWS-business performance effect sizes from 35,767 firms and establishments in 29 countries, we found that the mean HPWS-business performance effect size was positive overall (corrected r = .28) and positive in each country, regardless of its national culture or degree of institutional flexibility. In the case of national culture, the HPWS-business performance relationship was, on average, actually more strongly positive in countries where the degree of a priori hypothesized consistency or fit between an HPWS and national culture (according to national culture perspectives) was lower, except in the case of tight national cultures, where greater a priori fit of an HPWS with national culture was associated with a more positive HPWS-business performance effect size. However, in loose cultures (and in cultures that were neither tight nor loose), less a priori hypothesized consistency between an HPWS and national culture was associated with higher HPWS effectiveness. As such, our findings suggest the importance of not only national culture but also managerial discretion in understanding the HPWS-business performance relationship. (PsycINFO Database Record

[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 100(2) of Journal of Applied Psychology (see record 2015-08139-001). Table 3 contained formatting errors. Minus signs used to indicate negative statistical estimates within the table were inadvertently changed to m-dashes. All versions of this article have been corrected.] The purpose of this meta-analysis was to address unanswered questions regarding the associations between personality and workplace safety by (a) clarifying the magnitude and meaning of these associations with both broad and facet-level personality traits, (b) delineating how personality is associated with workplace safety, and (c) testing the relative importance of personality in comparison to perceptions of the social context of safety (i.e., safety climate) in predicting safety-related behavior. Our results revealed that whereas agreeableness and conscientiousness were negatively associated with unsafe behaviors, extraversion and neuroticism were positively associated with them. Of these traits, agreeableness accounted for the largest proportion of explained variance in safety-related behavior and openness to experience was unrelated. At the facet level, sensation seeking, altruism, anger, and impulsiveness were all meaningfully associated with safety-related behavior, though sensation seeking was the only facet that demonstrated a stronger relationship than its parent trait (i.e., extraversion). In addition, meta-analytic path modeling supported the theoretical expectation that personality's associations with accidents are mediated by safety-related behavior. Finally, although safety climate perceptions accounted for the majority of explained variance in safety-related behavior, personality traits (i.e., agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism) still accounted for a unique and substantive proportion of the explained variance. Taken together, these results substantiate the value of considering personality traits as key correlates of workplace safety.

Does work-family conflict predict strain, does strain predict work-family conflict, or are they reciprocally related? To answer these questions, we used meta-analytic path analyses on 33 studies that had repeatedly measured work interference with family (WIF) or family interference with work (FIW) and strain. Additionally, this study sheds light on whether relationships between WIF/FIW and work-specific strain support the popular cross-domain perspective or the less popular matching perspective. Results showed reciprocal effects; that is, that WIF predicted strain (β = .08) and strain predicted WIF (β = .08). Similarly, FIW and strain were reciprocally related, such that FIW predicted strain (β = .03) and strain predicted FIW (β = .05). These findings held for both men and women and for different time lags between the 2 measurement waves. WIF had a stronger effect on work-specific strain than did FIW, supporting the matching hypothesis rather than the cross-domain perspective.

Despite evidence that men are typically perceived as more appropriate and effective than women in leadership positions, a recent debate has emerged in the popular press and academic literature over the potential existence of a female leadership advantage. This meta-analysis addresses this debate by quantitatively summarizing gender differences in perceptions of leadership effectiveness across 99 independent samples from 95 studies. Results show that when all leadership contexts are considered, men and women do not differ in perceived leadership effectiveness. Yet, when other-ratings only are examined, women are rated as significantly more effective than men. In contrast, when self-ratings only are examined, men rate themselves as significantly more effective than women rate themselves. Additionally, this synthesis examines the influence of contextual moderators developed from role congruity theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Our findings help to extend role congruity theory by demonstrating how it can be supplemented based on other theories in the literature, as well as how the theory can be applied to both female and male leaders. (PsycINFO Database Record

A growing number of studies have examined the "sharedness" of leadership processes in teams (i.e., shared leadership, collective leadership, and distributed leadership). We meta-analytically cumulated 42 independent samples of shared leadership and examined its relationship to team effectiveness. Our findings reveal an overall positive relationship (ρ = .34). But perhaps more important, what is actually shared among members appears to matter with regard to team effectiveness. That is, shared traditional forms of leadership (e.g., initiating structure and consideration) show a lower relationship (ρ = .18) than either shared new-genre leadership (e.g., charismatic and transformational leadership; ρ = .34) or cumulative, overall shared leadership (ρ = .35). In addition, shared leadership tends to be more strongly related to team attitudinal outcomes and behavioral processes and emergent team states, compared with team performance. Moreover, the effects of shared leadership are stronger when the work of team members is more complex. Our findings further suggest that the referent used in measuring shared leadership does not influence its relationship with team effectiveness and that compared with vertical leadership, shared leadership shows unique effects in relation to team performance. In total, our study not only cumulates extant research on shared leadership but also provides directions for future research to move forward in the study of plural forms of leadership.