We examined whether the reason offered for electronic performance monitoring (EPM) influenced participants' performance, stress, motivation, and satisfaction. Participants performed a data‐entry task in one of five experimental conditions. In one condition, participants were not electronically monitored. In the remaining conditions, participants were electronically monitored but the explanation varied. One group was told that they would be electronically monitored but were given no explanation. Another group was told that EPM would be used to research factors associated with performance. In the developmental condition, participants were told that EPM would be used to provide them with feedback to improve performance, and in the administrative condition, participants were informed that EPM would be used to distribute rewards and punishments. Administrative condition participants had higher motivation and performance yet relatively low stress and dissatisfaction levels. Thus, EPM may enhance performance on simple, repetitive tasks without necessarily producing negative outcomes.

An applied sample was randomly assigned to evaluate the credentials of a job candidate with or without a physical disability and whose interview responses varied in quality (positive vs. average vs. negative). In addition to making hiring decisions, participants completed a number of measures including the Marlowe‐Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964), the Interaction with Disabled Persons Scale (Gething, 1991), an interview comfort measure, and an EEOC knowledge quiz. Results consistently indicated that participants evaluated the job candidate with a disability more favorably than the job candidate without a disability. Data also indicated a relationship between participants' level of comfort when interacting with persons with disabilities and their interview evaluations of such individuals. Results are discussed in terms of their implications for diversity management.

PurposeThis study aims to examine the impact of applicant weight and sex, job type and employer attitudes on employee screening decisions.Design/methodology/approachParticipants rated one of four job applicants on their hiring suitability for four different entry‐level jobs with high or low visibility and physical demands. Applicants varied in sex and weight as depicted in a photograph, but their job applications were identical.FindingsResults showed that overweight women experienced weight discrimination when applying for a job that was high in both visibility and physical demands.Research limitations/implicationsFuture research should examine weight discrimination in other racial and ethnic groups and with higher‐level jobs. Future research could also examine hiring decisions using a within‐subjects design to allow comparison across job applicants.Practical implicationsEmployers' perceptions of applicant weight may lead them to make biased decisions about individuals who are overweight during the hiring process particularly for jobs that are high in visibility and physical demands.Social implicationsThere has been an alarming increase in obesity rates in the USA, but there is limited legal protection against weight discrimination. Employers who make stereotyped assumptions about individuals who are overweight may be missing out on valuable workforce talent. Similarly, individuals who are overweight may face discriminatory obstacles in finding work.Originality/valueThis study systematically manipulated two important job characteristics: visibility and physical demands and used a sample of adults as raters.

No abstract

Computer-based training is rapidly being implemented in organizations. Many advantages of this approach have been suggested (e.g., self-paced instruction, uniform content, and long-run cost efficiency) along with several potential disadvantages (e.g., noncompletion rates, computer availability). Despite the purported advantages of computer-based training, little research has examined the effect of computer-based training on learning. This field study systematically compared computer-based sexual harassment training with traditional instructorled training. Overall, the results suggested that having a training course on sexual harassment, regardless of method of training, increased learning among the university employees who participated in these sessions. Reactions to both types of training were positive.