Publication bias poses multiple threats to the accuracy of meta-analytically derived effect sizes and related statistics. Unfortunately, a review of the literature indicates that unlike meta-analytic reviews in medicine, research in the organizational sciences tends to pay little attention to this issue. In this article, the authors introduce advances in meta-analytic techniques from the medical and related sciences for a comprehensive assessment and evaluation of publication bias. The authors illustrate their use on a data set on employment interview validities. Using multiple methods, including contour-enhanced funnel plots, trim and fill, Egger’s test of the intercept, Begg and Mazumdar’s rank correlation, meta-regression, cumulative meta-analysis, and selection models, the authors find limited evidence of publication bias in the studied data.

No abstract

The degree of pay spread can influence many organizational level outcomes (e.g., workforce productivity and organizational performance), but empirical studies are inconsistent about the directionality of the effect. We argue that it is not simply the width of the pay range but also the factors responsible for the width that explain the effects of the pay range on employee and organizational outcomes. We expect that when wider pay ranges are attributable to the use of performance-based pay, the effects of the pay range on performance are positive, but narrower pay ranges attributable to performance-based pay reduce this effect substantially. By contrast, wider pay ranges attributable to politically based pay should have negative effects on performance, and this effect should be weakened when the pay ranges are narrower. Data from a sample of motor carriers generally support our predictions. Although wider pay ranges have positive effects, the results reveal a complex pattern of relationships among the basis of pay allocations and pay range width on the one hand and workforce productivity and organizational performance on the other. Implications for future compensation and strategic human resource management research are discussed.

Previous reviews of the fit perspectives in SHRM have had a pessimistic tone and concluded that there was little evidence of the assumption that ‘fit’ leads to organizational success, although most reviews did not specifically focus on internal fit. This article aims to revisit the theoretical foundation of internal fit and provide a review of the literature addressing this issue. Specifically, it sets out to explore the theory and research behind the internal fit perspective in an attempt to summarize and advance our knowledge behind HRM systems and internal fit. In doing so, it addresses the theory behind ‘fit’, the interplay between external and internal fit, issues of the level of abstraction (e.g. focus on HRM philosophies, policies, or practices in measuring HRM systems), different types of internal fit, problems stemming from levels of analysis issues, and the empirical evidence, before summarizing and concluding.

The trustworthiness of research findings has been questioned in many domains of science. This article calls for a review of the trustworthiness of the scientific literature in industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology and a reconsideration of common practices that may harm the credibility of our literature. We note that most hypotheses in I–O psychology journals are confirmed. Thus, we are either approaching omniscience or our journals are publishing an unrepresentative sample of completed research. We view the latter explanation as more likely. We review structural problems in the publication process and in the conduct of research that is likely to promote a distortion of scientific knowledge. We then offer recommendations to make the I–O literature more accurate and trustworthy.