Work experience and related concepts such as tenure and seniority have been and continue to be used extensively in a variety of human resource functions. However, research on experience has proceeded without a clear theoretical orientation, adequate consideration of contextual and individual factors, and appropriate attention to measurement and design. These issues are addressed and a model of the work experience construct is offered. Work experience is described as consisting of qualitative and quantitative components that exist at different levels of specification and which interact and accrue over time. The model provides a nomological net for the experience construct linking it to contextual and individual factors critical for the development of experience and its translation into immediate outcomes of work‐based knowledge, skills, attitudes, and motivation, and secondary outcomes such as performance. The model provides a basis for specific research propositions and human resource applications that consider work experience as a multidimensional, multilevel, and temporally dynamic construct.

While workplace learning includes formal and informal learning, the rela-

This study examined gender bias on job performance in work settings where confounding variables (e. g., organizational level, experience, education) were cautiously taken into consideration to ensure fair comparisons. Although previous meta‐analyses examined gender biases on evaluations, findings in tightly controlled laboratory environments may differ from those in highly complicated field studies. We found little evidence of overall gender bias in performance appraisals in nonconfounded field studies. However, there were significant pro‐male biases when only men served as raters. Measure‐specific gender stereotypicality, instead of genera! stereotypicality about the job, produced gender bias in performance appraisal. Masculine measures produced pro‐male bias, and feminine measures produced pro‐female bias.

No abstract

We would like to thank Jim Farr, Frank Landy, and Mike Rovine for their comments on an earlier version of this article. Two anonymous reviewers also provided a number of helpful comments that resulted in improving the quality of this article, for which we are most grateful. We would also like to thank the Life Insurance Marketing Research Association for their support in helping us to obtain the data.

Cross-sectional research investigating seniority, tenure, and age as they relate to job performance has demonstrated an initial positive linear increase followed by a plateau. Investigations into the stability of performance have demonstrated that individuals change their rank order over time. Taken together, these findings suggest that the curvilinear relationship displayed in the seniority, tenure, and age research is actually made up of many different wKraindividual change patterns. Performance data for two samples of professional baseball players were used to investigate these individual change patterns for systematic and meaningful differences. The results demonstrated the importance of studying performance over time at the individual level and that focusing on either mean performance or change in rank order can mask systematic individual patterns of change.In recent years, the performance of individuals over time has received increased attention in the research literature. Specifically, two lines of research have developed, each focusing on different aspects of performance over time. The first set of studies has been concerned with the concepts of job tenure (often mislabeled job experience), seniority, and age and how they relate to job performance. The main emphasis in this research has been to investigate changes in mean performance over time

There is common agreement about the importance of workplace learning. Discussions about the topic have mostly focused on two major components: formal training and informal learning. These components have become the defining features of workplace learning. This article proposes a conceptual framework of workplace learning that is comprised of the interaction of three variables: 1) the location of the learning; 2) the extent of planning that has been invested in developing and delivering the learning experiences; and, 3) the role of the trainer, facilitator, or others during the learning process. The need for the proposed framework stems from two concerns. First, formal training and informal learning represent incompatible levels of discourse, making it difficult to have a cohesive understanding of workplace learning. Second, workplace learning appear to exclude a large segment of HRD practice, particularly when formal training programs occur in the work setting.

No abstract