Summary The successful performance adjustment of team newcomers is an increasingly important consideration given the prevalence of job‐changing and the uncertainty associated with starting work in a new team setting. Consequently, using sensemaking and uncertainty reduction theories as a conceptual basis, the present study tested work experience as a potential resource for newcomer performance adjustment in teams. Specifically, we tested work experience as a multidimensional predictor of both initial newcomer performance and the rate of performance change after team entry. We tested hypotheses using longitudinal newcomer performance data in the context of professional basketball teams. Although the traditional quantitative indicators of the length and amount of work experience were not meaningfully associated with newcomer performance adjustment, their interaction was. In addition, the qualitative indicator of newcomers' past transition experience revealed a significant, positive association with the rate of newcomer performance improvement following team entry. These results suggest that work experience is a meaningful facilitator of newcomer adjustment in teams and emphasize the dual consideration of both quantitative and qualitative work experiences. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
As a testing method, the efficacy of situational judgment tests (SJTs) is a function of a number of design features. One such design feature is the response format. However, despite the considerable interest in SJT design features, there is little guidance in the extant literature as to which response format is superior or the conditions under which one might be preferable to others. Using an integrity-based SJT measure administered to 31,194 job applicants, we present a comparative evaluation of 3 response formats (rate, rank, and most/least) in terms of construct-related validity, subgroup differences, and score reliability. The results indicate that the rate-SJT displayed stronger correlations with the hypothesized personality traits; weaker correlations with general mental ability and, consequently, lower levels of subgroup differences; and higher levels of internal consistency reliability. A follow-up study with 492 college students (Study 2; details of which are presented in the online supplemental materials) also indicates that the rate response format displayed higher levels of internal consistency and retest reliability as well as favorable reactions from test takers. However, it displayed the strongest relationships with a measure of response distortion, suggesting that it is more susceptible to this threat. Although there were a few exceptions, the rank and most/least response formats were generally quite similar in terms of several of the study outcomes. The results suggest that in the context of SJTs designed to measure noncognitive constructs, the rate response format appears to be the superior, preferred response format, with its main drawback being that it is susceptible to response distortion, although not any more so than the rank response format.
38 depressed (as measured by the Beck Depression Inventory) and 52 nondepressed college students were given a series of anagrams to solve. A 1-chance subgroup was informed that they would win a free movie ticket if they were successful in the task. A 2nd-chance subgroup received the same instructions as the 1-chance subgroup but were also informed that if they failed, they would have another opportunity in a different, undefined task. Ss were subdivided into success and failure subgroups that either succeeded at or failed the anagram task. Immediately afterwards, Ss reported their emotional state on the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List. Depressed Ss reported greater depression, anxiety, and hostility than nondepressed Ss in the 1-chance condition but not in the 2nd-chance condition; this interaction occurred independent of Ss' success or failure in the task. Results are viewed as indicating that current cognitive theories about the generality of pessimism in depression are incomplete. An explanation of the results in terms of the saliency of future reward opportunity is suggested as a basis for further study. (10 ref)
Individual climate perceptions (i.e., psychological climates) are often aggregated to form group-level climates without considering the equivalence of the meaning of climate within groups. Confirming perceptual equivalence across faultlines -within-group dividing lines that can create subgroups based on the alignment of group member attributes (Lau & Murnighan, 1998) -is a particularly important concern given that sense-making processes and subsequent psychological climates are likely to differ across faultlines. Using safety climate as an exemplar, we demonstrate the importance of assessing qualitative perceptual equivalence (i.e., perceptions of what a climate is) within groups instead of solely relying on traditional agreement indices (e.g., r wg , intraclass correlation [ICC]) to make aggregation decisions. Specifically, we tested for perceptual equivalence across context-specific faultlines (hierarchical level and organizational heritage) in a large, multinational organization using multi-group hierarchical confirmatory factor analyses and found that although traditional agreement indices universally supported aggregation decisions, tests of perceptual equivalence in 8 of 12 separate subgroup analyses failed to support aggregation. These findings confirm the importance of testing for perceptual equivalence within groups before aggregating psychological climates to the group level. Practitioner points• Our findings underscore the value for organizations to consider the potential existence of faultlines and to examine their possible influence on employee climate perceptions.• These findings also point to the need for organizations to promote qualitative equivalence of climate perceptions among employees independent of the potential existence of faultlines.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.