Evidence from 2 samples of Air Force mechanics supported the hypothesis that contextual performance affects employees' career advancement and rewards over time. Results of hierarchical regressions controlling for experience showed task performance and contextual performance each predicted systemic rewards. Each facet explained separate variance in promotability ratings over 2 years. In both samples, contextual performance explained separate variance in informal rewards but task performance did not. Task performance explained incremental variance in career advancement 1 year later but contextual performance did not. Analyses using correlations corrected for unreliability suggest these results cannot be attributed to measurement error. Contextual performance still explained separate variance in informal rewards, and task performance explained distinct variance in career advancement a year later.

This study applied meta‐analysis to assess the relationship between charismatic leadership style and leadership effectiveness, subordinate performance, subordinate satisfaction, subordinate effort, and subordinate commitment. Results indicate that the relationship between leader charisma and leader effectiveness is much weaker than reported in the published literature when leader effectiveness is measured at the individual level of analysis and when common method variance is controlled. Results also indicate a smaller relationship between charismatic leadership and subordinate performance when subordinate performance is measured at the individual level (r = 0.31) than when it is measured at the group level (r = 0.49 and robust across studies). These results suggest that charismatic leadership is more effective at increasing group performance than at increasing individual performance. Other moderators tested did not account for a significant portion of variance in the observed distribution of correlations, suggesting a need for further research into other potential moderators. Meta‐analysis examining the effects of charismatic leadership on subordinate effort and job satisfaction revealed lower correlations when multiple methods of measurement were used, with little convergence toward stable population estimates. Résumé La méta‐analyse a servi à évaluer le rapport entre le style de leadership charismatique et l'efficacité d'un tel style de leadership ainsi que le rendement, la satisfaction, l'effort et l'engagement des subalternes. Les résul‐tats obtenus indiquent que le rapport entre le charisme et l'efficacité du leader est beaucoup plusfaible que le pro‐posent les textes publiés à ce sujet lorsque l'efficacité du leader est mesurée au niveau individuel et lorsque la variance de la méthode commune est contrǒlée. Les résultats obtenus révèlent également un rapport moindre entre le leadership charismatique et le rendement des subalternes lorsque ce rendement est mesuré au niveau individuel (r = 0.31) qu'au niveau du groupe (r = 0,49 et notable parmi toutes les études passées en revue). Ces résultats suggèrent qu'un leadership charismatique con‐tribue davantage à accroǐtre le rendement du groupe que le rendement individuel. Les autres modérateurs mis à l'essai ne représented pas une portion significative de la variance dans la distribution des corrélations observées, ce qui laisser suggérer qu'une autre recherche serait nécessaire pour vérifier d'autres modérateurs potentiels. La méta‐analyse qui étudie l'incidence du leadership charismatique sur l'effort des subalternes et la satisfaction professionnelle démontre des corrélations moins marquées, lorsque des méthodes de mesure multiples one été utilisées, de měme qu'une convergence minime à l'égard des estimations de population stable.

No abstract

Training the older learner has been the topic of considerable discussion but there is no consensus on which instructional methods are associated with higher observed training performance. We use random factors meta-analysis to explore the effects of three instructional methods (lecture, modeling, and active participation) and four instructional factors (materials, feedback, pacing, and group size) on observed training performance. The results reveal that all three instructional methods and two instructional factors, self-pacing and group size, explain unique variance in observed training performance. Self-pacing explained the greatest proportion of the observed variance. Implications of these results are discussed.Over 40 million Americans age 40 and older are actively participating in the workforce. This represents an increase of more than 30% since 1990 and labor force projections indicate the number will rise to nearly 70 million by 2015 (Fullerton, 1999). Presently, 35 million workers are between the ages 45 and 54, 18.8 million are between the ages 55 and 64, 3.3 million are between ages 65 and 74 and nearly a million are over age 75 (Lerman & Schmidt, 1999; The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2002). The number of people over age 65 participating in the workforce is expected to increase to 39 million by 2010 and 70 million by 2030 (Wellner, 2002). These projections indicate that a great many people will work past

Does ‘being nice’ to each other always improve employee performance? Although research on workplace incivility has been growing, little is known about the flip side of it – workplace civility. In fact, different theoretical perspectives have suggested that civility could have positive (i.e. the flexibility perspective) or negative (i.e. the heuristics perspective) cognitive implications. In the current research, we examined whether and when workplace civility (operationalized as team civil communication) influences team members’ role performance in two studies. In Study 1, we recorded team civil communication among 108 teams of students who participated in a team-based simulation, and found that team civil communication enhanced team members’ role performance. In Study 2, we observed and coded 186 real-time surgeries conducted by surgical teams from a health-care center. Results showed a more nuanced and complex pattern regarding the influence of team civil communication, insofar as it enhanced team members’ role performance in teams with less complex tasks, but the effect decreased or even flipped to negative when team task complexity increased. These findings suggest that civility can have both positive and negative influences on performance, with the net effect being contingent upon the broader environmental demands faced by the team.