We tested the longstanding belief that performance is a function of the interaction between cognitive ability and motivation. Using raw data or values obtained from primary study authors as input (k = 40 to 55; N = 8,507 to 11,283), we used meta-analysis to assess the strength and consistency of the multiplicative effects of ability and motivation on performance. A triangulation of evidence based on several types of analyses revealed that the effects of ability and motivation on performance are additive rather than multiplicative. For example, the additive effects of ability and motivation accounted for about 91% of the explained variance in job performance, whereas the ability-motivation interaction accounted for only about 9% of the explained variance. In addition, when there was an interaction, it did not consistently reflect the predicted form (i.e., a stronger ability-performance relation when motivation is higher). Other key findings include that ability was relatively more important to training performance and to performance on work-related tasks in laboratory studies, whereas ability and motivation were similarly important to job performance. In addition, statelike measures of motivation were better predictors of performance than were traitlike measures. These findings have implications for theories about predictors of performance, state versus trait motivation, and maximal versus typical performance. They also have implications for talent management practices concerned with human capital acquisition and the prediction of employee performance.

No abstract

Membership mobilization is widely regarded as critical for union revitalization. Estimates of the level of activism vary widely, and studies reveal puzzling inconsistencies between union members' beliefs and intentions. Drawing from Ajzen's theory of planned behaviour, we address both issues using a sample of faculty union members. Results show both consistency and discrepancy between summary self-reports of activism and specific participation behaviours, helping account for the widely varying estimates of activism levels found in other studies. Results also indicate an important role for perceived control, a factor rarely examined in prior research on activism.Are you an active member, the kind who would be missed? Or are you just contented, that your name is on the list? -Attributed to anonymous union member (Barling et al. 1992: 95)

At some point, hiring managers in all organizations face the decision of whether to fill open positions with internal candidates (e.g., through promotions) or to hire external candidates (e.g., from competitors or new entrants into the labor market). Despite this ubiquitous choice, surprisingly little research has compared the effectiveness of internal and external selection or has identified situations in which 1 approach may be better than the other. The authors use theory on human capital resources to predict differences between internal and external hires on manager- and unit-level outcomes. Analysis of data from a quick-service retail organization (N = 3,697) suggested that internally hired managers demonstrated higher levels of individual job performance and commanded lower starting salaries than externally hired managers. At the unit-level, operations led by internal hires demonstrated higher performance on organization-specific criteria (i.e., service performance), whereas no internal-external differences were found on more general criteria (i.e., financial performance). They also found some evidence that differences in unit service performance decreased over time (but did not diminish completely) as external hires improved at a slightly faster rate than internal hires. Overall, these findings underscore the complexity of the recurring "build or buy" decision. The results also suggest that internal hires generally outperform external hires, both individually and collectively, and they do so for less money. (PsycINFO Database Record